TheRaven wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:57 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 9:28 am
Njlaxx11 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2023 6:25 am
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.