Rutgers 2025

[MDlaxfan76]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

[TheRaven]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

[BigTom5]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

Well said Raven, well said!

[MDlaxfan76]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

I do tend to be verbose, but that's quite the expansion!

I truly don't have a personal dog in the hunt, no kid currently involved in the sport nor coming up and my own alma mater isn't in the same league Big 10, though one of my lesser rooting interests, Hopkins, is. They're doing some portal transfers as well, just fewer. My other non alma mater rooting interest is in the ACC, UVA, and has taken a few each year as well...to good effect. I have no particular competitive interest re Rutgers and my alma mater, Dartmouth's, recruits are typically not from the same pool of student-athlete and they don't play Rutgers...very little overlap...and oh yeah, my own experiences re Rutgers decades ago always left me with respect for the program and head coach.

I do have an ongoing interest in the evolution of the sport and how kids experience their involvement in it. My family is 3 generations of D1 players, pop was deeply involved in the sport, Lacrosse Foundation, etc. I served on the BD of US Lacrosse as well. All 3 generations have also done some coaching, whether youth, HS, or international.

My question is whether the scale of this practice materially changes the dynamic for younger players; Rutgers is only in the conversation for me because of the peak scale so far. It's one thing for a couple of older players to get a final year of play somewhere having been injured earlier or the Covid effect, it's another to have the bulk of a team be transfers, players who chose to play elsewhere earlier in their careers.

I think it's a "live" question, an open experiment, akin to the argument many of us had about the difference to between one or two sophomores committing early to the bulk of team having committed before even playing a sophomore varsity season...what does that do to the youth level experience etc?

Folks are free to get defensive about this, get their backs up, but I think the question is quite fair. And as I said, it may produce winning teams nevertheless. Same argument was made about ER.

Others may have a more pointed, competitive, negative interest in the conversation, but at least some of us are genuinely interested in what this means for the kids coming up.

[mdk01]

Living in NJ I have some perspective. Each of the last 3 years Rutgers has brought in a top drawer Ivy player who is shut out of a 5th year. This year it's Peter Rizzotti. I think that's worked out well for them but obviously that's going away. Whether the additional transfer players will remain at current level remains to be seen. Brecht has been more aggressive than most but it seems to be a trend across the sport. Recruiting wise I don't see much difference. He's always had problems recruiting Bergen County, both publics and Catholics, but does fairly well in the rest of the state and out-of-state.

[1766]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

If you trust ranking system used by IL, Coach Brecht and staff have brought in more high school talent than at any other point since he's been there.
Players at this level think they are good enough to play anywhere. It's why certain schools can recruit high ranking attackman every class, take a transfer, and still bring high ranking players to campus.

Coach Brecht is doing what every good coach is doing. Getting as good of players as possible into the program. It's quite literally his job. Much is getting made about an issue that many schools are doing, only Rutgers is doing a little more of. Syracuse just brought in 8 or 9 transfers. Surely that is going to have a negative impact on some highly recruited high school players' time. But that's life in the big leagues. Rutgers is no different.

[livelovelax]

The transfer portal IS recruiting. Rutgers has done a very nice job of complementing their team with great kids who want to come to Rutgers and in most cases play "up" another level. Some of them are NJ kids coming back to rep their state, others are from mid level programs wanting to see if they can prove their metal vs other solid lacrosse players. Remarkably, most of the transfers this year were captains of their respective teams they left. I have met many and they all seem like great, respectful young men that get along and have bought into the culture. I am excited to see how it all plays out this spring. They are improved but the bulk of the Big Ten programs have improved their rosters as well.

Go RU!

[Farfromgeneva]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

I do tend to be verbose, but that's quite the expansion!

I truly don't have a personal dog in the hunt, no kid currently involved in the sport nor coming up and my own alma mater isn't in the same league Big 10, though one of my lesser rooting interests, Hopkins, is. They're doing some portal transfers as well, just fewer. My other non alma mater rooting interest is in the ACC, UVA, and has taken a few each year as well...to good effect. I have no particular competitive interest re Rutgers and my alma mater, Dartmouth's, recruits are typically not from the same pool of student-athlete and they don't play Rutgers...very little overlap...and oh yeah, my own experiences re Rutgers decades ago always left me with respect for the program and head coach.

I do have an ongoing interest in the evolution of the sport and how kids experience their involvement in it. My family is 3 generations of D1 players, pop was deeply involved in the sport, Lacrosse Foundation, etc. I served on the BD of US Lacrosse as well. All 3 generations have also done some coaching, whether youth, HS, or international.

My question is whether the scale of this practice materially changes the dynamic for younger players; Rutgers is only in the conversation for me because of the peak scale so far. It's one thing for a couple of older players to get a final year of play somewhere having been injured earlier or the Covid effect, it's another to have the bulk of a team be transfers, players who chose to play elsewhere earlier in their careers.

I think it's a "live" question, an open experiment, akin to the argument many of us had about the difference to between one or two sophomores committing early to the bulk of team having committed before even playing a sophomore varsity season...what does that do to the youth level experience etc?

Folks are free to get defensive about this, get their backs up, but I think the question is quite fair. And as I said, it may produce winning teams nevertheless. Same argument was made about ER.

Others may have a more pointed, competitive, negative interest in the conversation, but at least some of us are genuinely interested in what this means for the kids coming up.

I thought you were trying out a new handle!

[1766]

Congratulations the R players in the PLL. Solid year had by all. Colin Kirst and Ethan Rall were especially strong.

https://scarletknights.com/news/2023/9/ ... eason.aspx

[1766]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

It's a sign that the program has taken the next step. People with no attachment to the school feel the need to disparage it. You don't do that unless you feel threatened or are jealous. They are known as haters. Fill up the bandwagon with them I say!

You are right about the grad school. The undergrad's not too shabby either coming in at #40 in the last USNWR rankings.

[wgdsr]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

[AOD]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Yep, the classifications are apparently fluid. They've made other corrections since the original release.

[44WeWantMore]

i really don't get the rutgers hate.

what did they waitlist your kid? BB didn't give him a call on 9/1?

they've transformed their program through the portal - of course they're going to keep going to it. they've brought in some great players through it. RU has a phenomenal grad school, it's no wonder why kids want to go use their 5th or grad years there.

I think the point is that this practice is likely making Rutgers a less attractive destination for strong to top high school recruits. And a less attractive place for underclassmen in general. Expectations of earning playing time through hard work and diligence reduced as older players come off the portal and get that time.

Whether it works or not to produce high quality teams is a different question.

Personally, I have no dog in this hunt, just an interest in different approaches to recruiting and coaching and what it means for the sport and the kids who work diligently on and off the field. I don't feel as strongly negative about heavy portal usage as I did about ER, but it raises some similar questions about what coaches are prioritizing.

I believe the key aspect to consider here is that this practice may be impacting Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits and underclassmen in a less favorable way. It's possible that the expectations of earning playing time through hard work and dedication are diminishing as older players enter the transfer portal and secure playing time. Whether or not this strategy effectively results in high-quality teams is a separate matter entirely.
From my perspective, I don't have a strong personal stake in this matter. However, I am intrigued by the various approaches to recruiting and coaching and how they influence the sport and the young athletes who invest significant effort on and off the field. Nonetheless, I find myself deeply intrigued by the diverse array of strategies employed in the realms of recruiting and coaching, and the profound impact they wield on the sport itself, as well as on the dedicated young athletes who pour their hearts and souls into their endeavors, both on and off the playing field. The myriad techniques and philosophies that coaches and institutions adopt to build competitive teams and mold the next generation of sports talents continue to captivate my curiosity. I am fascinated by the intricate web of decisions, choices, and principles that coaches navigate, and the ripple effects these choices have on the athletes' development, aspirations, and overall experience within the world of sports. Consequently, my interest extends not only to the practical outcomes of these strategies but also to the broader implications they carry for the sport and its aspiring stars. My stance on heavy portal usage is not as negatively charged as it was regarding a previous issue, but it does raise similar questions about the priorities of coaches. I believe the practice in question may be having an impact on Rutgers, potentially making it a less appealing choice for accomplished high school recruits, including those at the top of their class. Moreover, it might be creating a less favorable environment for underclassmen overall. The traditional notion of earning playing time through dedication and hard work could be diminishing as more experienced players enter through the transfer portal and secure those opportunities. I believe the key takeaway here is that this practice may be altering Rutgers' appeal to top-tier high school recruits, as well as diminishing its overall appeal to underclassmen. The expectation of earning playing time through hard work and dedication appears to be diminishing as more experienced players enter the transfer portal and secure playing opportunities. Whether this strategy proves effective in building high-caliber teams is a separate matter altogether. From a personal standpoint, I don't have a strong stance on this issue. I'm merely interested in exploring diverse approaches to recruitment and coaching, and the implications for both the sport and the young athletes who invest their time and effort on and off the field. While my reservations about heavy reliance on the transfer portal are not as pronounced as they were with regards to early recruitment, it does prompt similar considerations about what coaches are emphasizing in their strategies.

I do tend to be verbose, but that's quite the expansion!

I truly don't have a personal dog in the hunt, no kid currently involved in the sport nor coming up and my own alma mater isn't in the same league Big 10, though one of my lesser rooting interests, Hopkins, is. They're doing some portal transfers as well, just fewer. My other non alma mater rooting interest is in the ACC, UVA, and has taken a few each year as well...to good effect. I have no particular competitive interest re Rutgers and my alma mater, Dartmouth's, recruits are typically not from the same pool of student-athlete and they don't play Rutgers...very little overlap...and oh yeah, my own experiences re Rutgers decades ago always left me with respect for the program and head coach.

I do have an ongoing interest in the evolution of the sport and how kids experience their involvement in it. My family is 3 generations of D1 players, pop was deeply involved in the sport, Lacrosse Foundation, etc. I served on the BD of US Lacrosse as well. All 3 generations have also done some coaching, whether youth, HS, or international.

My question is whether the scale of this practice materially changes the dynamic for younger players; Rutgers is only in the conversation for me because of the peak scale so far. It's one thing for a couple of older players to get a final year of play somewhere having been injured earlier or the Covid effect, it's another to have the bulk of a team be transfers, players who chose to play elsewhere earlier in their careers.

I think it's a "live" question, an open experiment, akin to the argument many of us had about the difference to between one or two sophomores committing early to the bulk of team having committed before even playing a sophomore varsity season...what does that do to the youth level experience etc?

Folks are free to get defensive about this, get their backs up, but I think the question is quite fair. And as I said, it may produce winning teams nevertheless. Same argument was made about ER.

Others may have a more pointed, competitive, negative interest in the conversation, but at least some of us are genuinely interested in what this means for the kids coming up.

I thought you were trying out a new handle!

I thought it was the output of a prompt to an LLM requesting a re-write of the parent post in the same style, but longer.

[1766]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Looks like math was a bit of a challenge for him. One of those is no longer on the team due to medical reasons, so...

[wgdsr]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Looks like math was a bit of a challenge for him. One of those is no longer on the team due to medical reasons, so...

he (and you) were likely just going by numbers already posted, that there were 9 sophs left.
having a small amount of attrition probably says something to the positive for a program.
having more than that doesn't really in and of itself say anything. student athletes don't stick for any number of reasons. doesn't mean the observation and speculation will abate, and there's a very real chance it crops up in recruits' calculus even without them knowing the reasons.

there's also the very real possibility that this is rutgers' best angle.

[1766]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Looks like math was a bit of a challenge for him. One of those is no longer on the team due to medical reasons, so...

he (and you) were likely just going by numbers already posted, that there were 9 sophs left.
having a small amount of attrition probably says something to the positive for a program.
having more than that doesn't really in and of itself say anything. student athletes don't stick for any number of reasons. doesn't mean the observation and speculation will abate, and there's a very real chance it crops up in recruits' calculus even without them knowing the reasons.

there's also the very real possibility that this is rutgers' best angle.

I didn't go by anything other than the correction. Players leave programs all the time. Syracuse as an example lost their best player to the portal two years ago. Players leave- sometimes for the similar reasons, sometimes not. Rutgers isn't unique by any stretch and nor has any contributor of real value left.

[BigTom5]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Looks like math was a bit of a challenge for him. One of those is no longer on the team due to medical reasons, so...

he (and you) were likely just going by numbers already posted, that there were 9 sophs left.
having a small amount of attrition probably says something to the positive for a program.
having more than that doesn't really in and of itself say anything. student athletes don't stick for any number of reasons. doesn't mean the observation and speculation will abate, and there's a very real chance it crops up in recruits' calculus even without them knowing the reasons.

there's also the very real possibility that this is rutgers' best angle.

I didn't go by anything other than the correction. Players leave programs all the time. Syracuse as an example lost their best player to the portal two years ago. Players leave- sometimes for the similar reasons, sometimes not. Rutgers isn't unique by any stretch and nor has any contributor of real value left.

You are delusional. Whether you want to admit it or not the facts don’t change, over the last 2 years Rutgers has been tops in the volume of transfers in and volume of recruited commits who leave. That makes them unique.

[blue angels]

Class of 2021 - started with 10 recruits, down to 5 two years later.
Class of 2022 - started with 11 recruits, down to 9 one year later.

But yeah, there are no negative effects of bringing in tons of transfers every year. It’s a strong locker room, they embrace the extra competition, nothing to see here.

Losing 2 players from a class from 2 years ago isn't unusual at all. It's also the year Rutgers went to the Final Four.

I know math is difficult, but you lost 5 guys from a class two years ago (and 2 from the class one year ago).

Five out of ten is unusual, no?

actually 7 sophs from the class of 2022 still left. just thought i should make that clarification.

Looks like math was a bit of a challenge for him. One of those is no longer on the team due to medical reasons, so...

he (and you) were likely just going by numbers already posted, that there were 9 sophs left.
having a small amount of attrition probably says something to the positive for a program.
having more than that doesn't really in and of itself say anything. student athletes don't stick for any number of reasons. doesn't mean the observation and speculation will abate, and there's a very real chance it crops up in recruits' calculus even without them knowing the reasons.

there's also the very real possibility that this is rutgers' best angle.

I didn't go by anything other than the correction. Players leave programs all the time. Syracuse as an example lost their best player to the portal two years ago. Players leave- sometimes for the similar reasons, sometimes not. Rutgers isn't unique by any stretch and nor has any contributor of real value left.

You are delusional. Whether you want to admit it or not the facts don’t change, over the last 2 years Rutgers has been tops in the volume of transfers in and volume of recruited commits who leave. That makes them unique.

Why do you want to stir him up? Is it sport? He clearly isn't even a Rutgers alumnus but he won't take this well.

[1766]

Stir me up lol. A grip of NPC's in this thread.

Yes, a lot of high level recruited transfers want to come to Rutgers. That's not a surprise considering the great grad programs they have. A few more it seems than other schools. So what?

As to "recruited commits" that have transferred out, it's no more than many other schools. Show your work otherwise, Tubby.

[1766]

Albany Red/White scrimmage. Next stop on the road tour is South Jersey then Long Island.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TluZEa7Sm8&t=93s