NESCAC

[SouthieLax]

Except, Drexel treated it like a SCRIMMAGE, Salisbury treated like a tourney game.

Says you….

[laxdad1434]

All over the place? I've been consistent throughout this thread. This isn't about one player, it's about the illusion that NESCACians have about the league. Are the players good, absolutely, but there's reasons they're playing D3, not as big, fast, strong, skilled as most D1 players. Some like the relaxed day to day schedules. Are there exceptions, yup, and many have been listed. But they're all exceptions. For F*#K sake man, you're talking about less then 1% of the players in the league having success at the D1 level.

I have know idea how many failed with the transition, probably not many, because it make only sense that the D1 team knows what they're getting. They're not offering a spot to questionable player or a backup.

They aren’t exceptions, they are just the only ones who transferred. Walbaum was never first team All-NESCAC, he only achieved that in D1. What about the 25 guys who made All-NESCAC his last year at Tufts, how would they have done? Likewise, McCormack peaked at 2nd team All-NESCAC once, what about the 1st Teamers his last year at Midd?

Look at the years they played D3...we had this little thing called COVID going around. a season was cancelled after 4 games, MW only played in 1. Schedules were shortened, practices were limited. Where do you think the got their extra year from?

Dude you're fighting a whole forum on this one, we get it you kid played at NJIT and is having success in the CLC now. Good for him. The top D3 teams have scrimmaged given ranked D1 teams good games.

Tufts up 8-4 after 1 and 11-7 at half. Tufts goalie has been big and #33 has been shooting at a high percentage and Tufts has been pushing transition, as usual. Faceoff has been about 50/50. Dartmouth has scored on a few crease looks with slow 2 slides. Nice day for lacrosse!

As noted, Tufts up 11- 7 at half, and then Tufts started subbing its 2nd/3rd line guys across the board. Dartmouth kept running its starters and tied it up in 3rd. Tufts pulled away again by a few, but basically played its bench in the 4th and the "scrimmage" ended in a 17-17 draw. They reset the scoreboard and played a 5th quarter, and Tufts Freshmen were up 4-0 on Dmouth Freshman at the end of the 5th.

That's my recollection at least.

There's the results of Dartmouth/Tufts from last year. Keep in mind this scrimmage was a Tufts team that had no fall ball, very strict league rules about meeting with coaches, and had started spring practice only 5 days earlier. Like yeah it's a scrimmage but an NJIT scrimmage is beneath Tufts and most of its peers in the NESCAC and D3. (That should not be a controversial statement). Thank you for giving us the sparknotes on the entire transfer portal but that point doesn't really matter for either side. If you are arguing which TEAM would win, the better coached top D3 teams would beat low level D1 teams consistently.

A scrimmage...one scrimmage, that's what you're going with? So you believed Salisbury was better than Drexel in 2021? They'd have to be right, they won a scrimmage Drexel went 10-2 that year, won their conf and almost beat ND in the tourney. But Salisbury won a scrimmage, so they must be better. Except, Drexel treated it like a SCRIMMAGE, Salisbury treated like a tourney game.

Laxdad, you're reading comprehension is not too good apparently.

In 2021, Tufts/Dartmouth played a GAME and Tufts won handily. In 2022, they scrimmaged and Tufts was rolling, and then started subbing liberally while Dartmouth did not. Tufts would have won by 11-13 if starters stayed in. I was at the event. Were you?

Are you in another airport delay ffs?

"There's the results of Dartmouth/Tufts from last year. Keep in mind this scrimmage was a Tufts team that had no fall ball, very strict league rules about meeting with coaches, and had started spring practice only 5 days earlier."

No more airports until January.

[ah23]

I can say with relative certainty that you have watched more of each of them play, so you are far better suited to speak on their individual talent levels than I.

Maybe, was genuinely curious though. As you alluded to, ‘best player’ is pretty subjective.

Now you go. How many Duke players would Bates need to win the NESCAC?

Depends on who/what position(s), but…I think the answer is a lot. The NESCAC is way too good, and lacrosse is too much of a team game for a couple of guys to turn an 0-10 team into the conference’s best.

[justanotherperson]

Definitions for me:
Low D1: NJIY, Hampton, Lowell, Canisius, Queens, Wagner, Cleveland St, Detroit Mercy, Lindenwood (RIP), Bonnys, LIU, VMI, St Johns, Sacred Heart
(leaving out HCross, Dartmouth, Bucknell, Colgate, Lafayette because even though historically bad, these are the teams that compete with the below D3s for recruits and I dont think they would do as well against these teams, except maybe HC)
High D3 academic / lax: top 7 NESCAC
Mid-High D3 academic + Lax: Dickinson, Gettysburg, top 3 Liberty, Stevens, Denison, Kenyon, Swat, W&L
High D3 Lax: CNU, Salisbury, York

Im going to go out on a limb and say the gap between low D1 and high D3 is much more slim than high D3 and low d3. I think any of the NESCAC top players would do very well on those Low D1 teams listed above. They chose not to go there likely for academic reasons. IF the high D3 teams + Salisbury/CNU and some of the LIberty teams were to play the low D1 teams straight up, I think it would be 50/50 and I dont think they would get "crushed" or "destroyed" as was previously pointed out

I think 'smoovas' earlier point about recruitment is most salient. At least here in the Northeast, the pecking order of recruitment is high D1, mid D1 / High D3, low D1 / high D2 / mid D3 and then everyone else We routinely see clubs and prep schools post their commits and the low D1s are often very late. My own person experience had my son still getting D1 reach outs well into his Senior year. Now does earlier recruitment necessarily translate into better players? Not necessarily but it is a general rule of thumb that probably holds true. But the point that someone said that the low D1 programs would be salivating to have some of the high D3 programs is true. The reality is players at those mid-high D3 colleges would rather go to their respective schools then go low-mid D1

The comparison to football and basketball is totally ludicrous. Totally different demographic recruiting base and much greater depth of talent across basketball and football. I would say lacrosse recruiting for high academic D3 is much closer to squash, swimming, golf, tennis, fencing and crew then basketball and football.

Love this discussion though. Love to see an active board. My one troll (but not entirely untrue) comment: I think if you gave Brunswick, Lawrenceville, St Anthonys, McDonough, GPRep, Culver kids 1-2 years of maturity (not as 18 year olds), they would hold their own against low D1 teams.

Disclaimer: No dog in this fight. Not a NESCAC dad.

I disagree with your "ludicrous" statement. Football and lacrosse are more similar to each other then any other sport. Most are multi sport athletes, most played both sports. Roster sizes are both 40+ players, and high academic schools recruit from the same pool, apples to apples. So demographics play no part.

Comparison D3/D1 football/lacrosse:
Football - Williams 80 players, Princeton 90. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. Does anybody really think Williams could play with Princeton?

Lacrosse - Williams 45 players, Princeton 60. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. 30-10 Princeton on a running clock.

There's a reason for the different divisions. Players at D1 are bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled.

Still not buying the comparison between football / basketball and lacrosse recruiting. And I am definitely not comparing Williams football recruitment to Princeton football recruitment; its not even close. Maybe the same academically but not the same athletic wise.

What we are missing is that the reason the NESCAC and some of the other higher academic D3 schools have such good athletes is because they chose those schools for ACADEMIC reasons over the low (and mid) D1 schools. Yes, some of them would not be able to compete but a large amount of them would be able to. They just would never chose to go any of those low-mid D1 schools because it doesnt offer them the academic rigor / prestige that they would want in a school. I look at my own sons choices. Had plenty of D1 interest but none from the top 15 schools which coincidentally are some of the top academic schools. Ended up playing MCLA. His high school team alone had 3-4 players that could have easily played low D1 but now play club at top academic schools. Many (not all) of the NESCAC players would absolutely do well at at the low D1 level and in translation, some of these D3 schools would also do well against the low D1 schools. Maybe one day, NJIT will move out of the bad D1 lax schools and into the bad D1 academic D! lax schools (along with lafayette, bucknell, HC, colgate, Dartmouth). They did just get ranked high by the new WSJ rankings...

[laxdad1434]

Definitions for me:
Low D1: NJIY, Hampton, Lowell, Canisius, Queens, Wagner, Cleveland St, Detroit Mercy, Lindenwood (RIP), Bonnys, LIU, VMI, St Johns, Sacred Heart
(leaving out HCross, Dartmouth, Bucknell, Colgate, Lafayette because even though historically bad, these are the teams that compete with the below D3s for recruits and I dont think they would do as well against these teams, except maybe HC)
High D3 academic / lax: top 7 NESCAC
Mid-High D3 academic + Lax: Dickinson, Gettysburg, top 3 Liberty, Stevens, Denison, Kenyon, Swat, W&L
High D3 Lax: CNU, Salisbury, York

Im going to go out on a limb and say the gap between low D1 and high D3 is much more slim than high D3 and low d3. I think any of the NESCAC top players would do very well on those Low D1 teams listed above. They chose not to go there likely for academic reasons. IF the high D3 teams + Salisbury/CNU and some of the LIberty teams were to play the low D1 teams straight up, I think it would be 50/50 and I dont think they would get "crushed" or "destroyed" as was previously pointed out

I think 'smoovas' earlier point about recruitment is most salient. At least here in the Northeast, the pecking order of recruitment is high D1, mid D1 / High D3, low D1 / high D2 / mid D3 and then everyone else We routinely see clubs and prep schools post their commits and the low D1s are often very late. My own person experience had my son still getting D1 reach outs well into his Senior year. Now does earlier recruitment necessarily translate into better players? Not necessarily but it is a general rule of thumb that probably holds true. But the point that someone said that the low D1 programs would be salivating to have some of the high D3 programs is true. The reality is players at those mid-high D3 colleges would rather go to their respective schools then go low-mid D1

The comparison to football and basketball is totally ludicrous. Totally different demographic recruiting base and much greater depth of talent across basketball and football. I would say lacrosse recruiting for high academic D3 is much closer to squash, swimming, golf, tennis, fencing and crew then basketball and football.

Love this discussion though. Love to see an active board. My one troll (but not entirely untrue) comment: I think if you gave Brunswick, Lawrenceville, St Anthonys, McDonough, GPRep, Culver kids 1-2 years of maturity (not as 18 year olds), they would hold their own against low D1 teams.

Disclaimer: No dog in this fight. Not a NESCAC dad.

I disagree with your "ludicrous" statement. Football and lacrosse are more similar to each other then any other sport. Most are multi sport athletes, most played both sports. Roster sizes are both 40+ players, and high academic schools recruit from the same pool, apples to apples. So demographics play no part.

Comparison D3/D1 football/lacrosse:
Football - Williams 80 players, Princeton 90. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. Does anybody really think Williams could play with Princeton?

Lacrosse - Williams 45 players, Princeton 60. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. 30-10 Princeton on a running clock.

There's a reason for the different divisions. Players at D1 are bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled.

Still not buying the comparison between football / basketball and lacrosse recruiting. And I am definitely not comparing Williams football recruitment to Princeton football recruitment; its not even close. Maybe the same academically but not the same athletic wise.

What we are missing is that the reason the NESCAC and some of the other higher academic D3 schools have such good athletes is because they chose those schools for ACADEMIC reasons over the low (and mid) D1 schools. Yes, some of them would not be able to compete but a large amount of them would be able to. They just would never chose to go any of those low-mid D1 schools because it doesnt offer them the academic rigor / prestige that they would want in a school. I look at my own sons choices. Had plenty of D1 interest but none from the top 15 schools which coincidentally are some of the top academic schools. Ended up playing MCLA. His high school team alone had 3-4 players that could have easily played low D1 but now play club at top academic schools. Many (not all) of the NESCAC players would absolutely do well at at the low D1 level and in translation, some of these D3 schools would also do well against the low D1 schools. Maybe one day, NJIT will move out of the bad D1 lax schools and into the bad D1 academic D! lax schools (along with lafayette, bucknell, HC, colgate, Dartmouth). They did just get ranked high by the new WSJ rankings...

Thanks for agreeing with me that D1 is far superior athletically.

I do not care about NJIT, not one bit. But since you keep pounding it...They are ranked ahead of all NESCAC schools for ROI, Williams is 20 spots behind them and the highest ranked NESCAC school.

https://www.payscale.com/college-roi/page/5

[lilax]

All over the place? I've been consistent throughout this thread. This isn't about one player, it's about the illusion that NESCACians have about the league. Are the players good, absolutely, but there's reasons they're playing D3, not as big, fast, strong, skilled as most D1 players. Some like the relaxed day to day schedules. Are there exceptions, yup, and many have been listed. But they're all exceptions. For F*#K sake man, you're talking about less then 1% of the players in the league having success at the D1 level.

I have know idea how many failed with the transition, probably not many, because it make only sense that the D1 team knows what they're getting. They're not offering a spot to questionable player or a backup.

They aren’t exceptions, they are just the only ones who transferred. Walbaum was never first team All-NESCAC, he only achieved that in D1. What about the 25 guys who made All-NESCAC his last year at Tufts, how would they have done? Likewise, McCormack peaked at 2nd team All-NESCAC once, what about the 1st Teamers his last year at Midd?

Look at the years they played D3...we had this little thing called COVID going around. a season was cancelled after 4 games, MW only played in 1. Schedules were shortened, practices were limited. Where do you think the got their extra year from?

Dude you're fighting a whole forum on this one, we get it you kid played at NJIT and is having success in the CLC now. Good for him. The top D3 teams have scrimmaged given ranked D1 teams good games.

Tufts up 8-4 after 1 and 11-7 at half. Tufts goalie has been big and #33 has been shooting at a high percentage and Tufts has been pushing transition, as usual. Faceoff has been about 50/50. Dartmouth has scored on a few crease looks with slow 2 slides. Nice day for lacrosse!

As noted, Tufts up 11- 7 at half, and then Tufts started subbing its 2nd/3rd line guys across the board. Dartmouth kept running its starters and tied it up in 3rd. Tufts pulled away again by a few, but basically played its bench in the 4th and the "scrimmage" ended in a 17-17 draw. They reset the scoreboard and played a 5th quarter, and Tufts Freshmen were up 4-0 on Dmouth Freshman at the end of the 5th.

That's my recollection at least.

There's the results of Dartmouth/Tufts from last year. Keep in mind this scrimmage was a Tufts team that had no fall ball, very strict league rules about meeting with coaches, and had started spring practice only 5 days earlier. Like yeah it's a scrimmage but an NJIT scrimmage is beneath Tufts and most of its peers in the NESCAC and D3. (That should not be a controversial statement). Thank you for giving us the sparknotes on the entire transfer portal but that point doesn't really matter for either side. If you are arguing which TEAM would win, the better coached top D3 teams would beat low level D1 teams consistently.

A scrimmage...one scrimmage, that's what you're going with? So you believed Salisbury was better than Drexel in 2021? They'd have to be right, they won a scrimmage Drexel went 10-2 that year, won their conf and almost beat ND in the tourney. But Salisbury won a scrimmage, so they must be better. Except, Drexel treated it like a SCRIMMAGE, Salisbury treated like a tourney game.

Laxdad, you're reading comprehension is not too good apparently.

In 2021, Tufts/Dartmouth played a GAME and Tufts won handily. In 2022, they scrimmaged and Tufts was rolling, and then started subbing liberally while Dartmouth did not. Tufts would have won by 11-13 if starters stayed in. I was at the event. Were you?

Are you in another airport delay ffs?

"There's the results of Dartmouth/Tufts from last year. Keep in mind this scrimmage was a Tufts team that had no fall ball, very strict league rules about meeting with coaches, and had started spring practice only 5 days earlier."

No more airports until January.

Not to throw stones at your argument, but it was well documented that Dartmouth had only 23 players on campus (Mostly freshman) for that 2021 scrimmage. Most of their senior, juniors, and sophomores had chosen to sit out that spring with the hopes of adding an extra year of eligibility. I counted only 3 2022 starter that actually played in the scrimmage.

[shorelax12]

Definitions for me:
Low D1: NJIY, Hampton, Lowell, Canisius, Queens, Wagner, Cleveland St, Detroit Mercy, Lindenwood (RIP), Bonnys, LIU, VMI, St Johns, Sacred Heart
(leaving out HCross, Dartmouth, Bucknell, Colgate, Lafayette because even though historically bad, these are the teams that compete with the below D3s for recruits and I dont think they would do as well against these teams, except maybe HC)
High D3 academic / lax: top 7 NESCAC
Mid-High D3 academic + Lax: Dickinson, Gettysburg, top 3 Liberty, Stevens, Denison, Kenyon, Swat, W&L
High D3 Lax: CNU, Salisbury, York

Im going to go out on a limb and say the gap between low D1 and high D3 is much more slim than high D3 and low d3. I think any of the NESCAC top players would do very well on those Low D1 teams listed above. They chose not to go there likely for academic reasons. IF the high D3 teams + Salisbury/CNU and some of the LIberty teams were to play the low D1 teams straight up, I think it would be 50/50 and I dont think they would get "crushed" or "destroyed" as was previously pointed out

I think 'smoovas' earlier point about recruitment is most salient. At least here in the Northeast, the pecking order of recruitment is high D1, mid D1 / High D3, low D1 / high D2 / mid D3 and then everyone else We routinely see clubs and prep schools post their commits and the low D1s are often very late. My own person experience had my son still getting D1 reach outs well into his Senior year. Now does earlier recruitment necessarily translate into better players? Not necessarily but it is a general rule of thumb that probably holds true. But the point that someone said that the low D1 programs would be salivating to have some of the high D3 programs is true. The reality is players at those mid-high D3 colleges would rather go to their respective schools then go low-mid D1

The comparison to football and basketball is totally ludicrous. Totally different demographic recruiting base and much greater depth of talent across basketball and football. I would say lacrosse recruiting for high academic D3 is much closer to squash, swimming, golf, tennis, fencing and crew then basketball and football.

Love this discussion though. Love to see an active board. My one troll (but not entirely untrue) comment: I think if you gave Brunswick, Lawrenceville, St Anthonys, McDonough, GPRep, Culver kids 1-2 years of maturity (not as 18 year olds), they would hold their own against low D1 teams.

Disclaimer: No dog in this fight. Not a NESCAC dad.

I disagree with your "ludicrous" statement. Football and lacrosse are more similar to each other then any other sport. Most are multi sport athletes, most played both sports. Roster sizes are both 40+ players, and high academic schools recruit from the same pool, apples to apples. So demographics play no part.

Comparison D3/D1 football/lacrosse:
Football - Williams 80 players, Princeton 90. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. Does anybody really think Williams could play with Princeton?

Lacrosse - Williams 45 players, Princeton 60. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. 30-10 Princeton on a running clock.

There's a reason for the different divisions. Players at D1 are bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled.

Still not buying the comparison between football / basketball and lacrosse recruiting. And I am definitely not comparing Williams football recruitment to Princeton football recruitment; its not even close. Maybe the same academically but not the same athletic wise.

What we are missing is that the reason the NESCAC and some of the other higher academic D3 schools have such good athletes is because they chose those schools for ACADEMIC reasons over the low (and mid) D1 schools. Yes, some of them would not be able to compete but a large amount of them would be able to. They just would never chose to go any of those low-mid D1 schools because it doesnt offer them the academic rigor / prestige that they would want in a school. I look at my own sons choices. Had plenty of D1 interest but none from the top 15 schools which coincidentally are some of the top academic schools. Ended up playing MCLA. His high school team alone had 3-4 players that could have easily played low D1 but now play club at top academic schools. Many (not all) of the NESCAC players would absolutely do well at at the low D1 level and in translation, some of these D3 schools would also do well against the low D1 schools. Maybe one day, NJIT will move out of the bad D1 lax schools and into the bad D1 academic D! lax schools (along with lafayette, bucknell, HC, colgate, Dartmouth). They did just get ranked high by the new WSJ rankings...

Thanks for agreeing with me that D1 is far superior athletically.

I do not care about NJIT, not one bit. But since you keep pounding it...They are ranked ahead of all NESCAC schools for ROI, Williams is 20 spots behind them and the highest ranked NESCAC school.

https://www.payscale.com/college-roi/page/5

While I disagree with much of what you have said in this forum, and ROI is probably not the most important factor for many NESCAC applicants, I would agree that lumping NJIT in with lower level academic institutions does not make sense. NJIT, amongst its peers, is an excellent school, its only real disadvantage being the location of the campus. Perhaps NJIT should play Stevens to finally settle the D1/D3 debate, battle of the NJ engineers

[laxdad1434]

Definitions for me:
Low D1: NJIY, Hampton, Lowell, Canisius, Queens, Wagner, Cleveland St, Detroit Mercy, Lindenwood (RIP), Bonnys, LIU, VMI, St Johns, Sacred Heart
(leaving out HCross, Dartmouth, Bucknell, Colgate, Lafayette because even though historically bad, these are the teams that compete with the below D3s for recruits and I dont think they would do as well against these teams, except maybe HC)
High D3 academic / lax: top 7 NESCAC
Mid-High D3 academic + Lax: Dickinson, Gettysburg, top 3 Liberty, Stevens, Denison, Kenyon, Swat, W&L
High D3 Lax: CNU, Salisbury, York

Im going to go out on a limb and say the gap between low D1 and high D3 is much more slim than high D3 and low d3. I think any of the NESCAC top players would do very well on those Low D1 teams listed above. They chose not to go there likely for academic reasons. IF the high D3 teams + Salisbury/CNU and some of the LIberty teams were to play the low D1 teams straight up, I think it would be 50/50 and I dont think they would get "crushed" or "destroyed" as was previously pointed out

I think 'smoovas' earlier point about recruitment is most salient. At least here in the Northeast, the pecking order of recruitment is high D1, mid D1 / High D3, low D1 / high D2 / mid D3 and then everyone else We routinely see clubs and prep schools post their commits and the low D1s are often very late. My own person experience had my son still getting D1 reach outs well into his Senior year. Now does earlier recruitment necessarily translate into better players? Not necessarily but it is a general rule of thumb that probably holds true. But the point that someone said that the low D1 programs would be salivating to have some of the high D3 programs is true. The reality is players at those mid-high D3 colleges would rather go to their respective schools then go low-mid D1

The comparison to football and basketball is totally ludicrous. Totally different demographic recruiting base and much greater depth of talent across basketball and football. I would say lacrosse recruiting for high academic D3 is much closer to squash, swimming, golf, tennis, fencing and crew then basketball and football.

Love this discussion though. Love to see an active board. My one troll (but not entirely untrue) comment: I think if you gave Brunswick, Lawrenceville, St Anthonys, McDonough, GPRep, Culver kids 1-2 years of maturity (not as 18 year olds), they would hold their own against low D1 teams.

Disclaimer: No dog in this fight. Not a NESCAC dad.

I disagree with your "ludicrous" statement. Football and lacrosse are more similar to each other then any other sport. Most are multi sport athletes, most played both sports. Roster sizes are both 40+ players, and high academic schools recruit from the same pool, apples to apples. So demographics play no part.

Comparison D3/D1 football/lacrosse:
Football - Williams 80 players, Princeton 90. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. Does anybody really think Williams could play with Princeton?

Lacrosse - Williams 45 players, Princeton 60. They recruit form the same pool of players, with the same academic restrictions. 30-10 Princeton on a running clock.

There's a reason for the different divisions. Players at D1 are bigger, stronger, faster, more skilled.

Still not buying the comparison between football / basketball and lacrosse recruiting. And I am definitely not comparing Williams football recruitment to Princeton football recruitment; its not even close. Maybe the same academically but not the same athletic wise.

What we are missing is that the reason the NESCAC and some of the other higher academic D3 schools have such good athletes is because they chose those schools for ACADEMIC reasons over the low (and mid) D1 schools. Yes, some of them would not be able to compete but a large amount of them would be able to. They just would never chose to go any of those low-mid D1 schools because it doesnt offer them the academic rigor / prestige that they would want in a school. I look at my own sons choices. Had plenty of D1 interest but none from the top 15 schools which coincidentally are some of the top academic schools. Ended up playing MCLA. His high school team alone had 3-4 players that could have easily played low D1 but now play club at top academic schools. Many (not all) of the NESCAC players would absolutely do well at at the low D1 level and in translation, some of these D3 schools would also do well against the low D1 schools. Maybe one day, NJIT will move out of the bad D1 lax schools and into the bad D1 academic D! lax schools (along with lafayette, bucknell, HC, colgate, Dartmouth). They did just get ranked high by the new WSJ rankings...

Thanks for agreeing with me that D1 is far superior athletically.

I do not care about NJIT, not one bit. But since you keep pounding it...They are ranked ahead of all NESCAC schools for ROI, Williams is 20 spots behind them and the highest ranked NESCAC school.

https://www.payscale.com/college-roi/page/5

While I disagree with much of what you have said in this forum, and ROI is probably not the most important factor for many NESCAC applicants, I would agree that lumping NJIT in with lower level academic institutions does not make sense. NJIT, amongst its peers, is an excellent school, its only real disadvantage being the location of the campus. Perhaps NJIT should play Stevens to finally settle the D1/D3 debate, battle of the NJ engineers

Knowing both teams very well, my son played club with kids on both teams and spent a season on NJIT. NJIT has the advantage if they were to play, their starters are bigger, faster athletes, NJIT is a physically large team. Also, it's a big difference from playing in a conference with Arcadia, Wilkes and FDU, and playing UMBC, UAlbany and Vermont. Academically, anyone that knows anything about the school knows what NJIT has to offer. We were hoping Stevens would join the CLC.

[Laxattackjack]

This thread cracks me up. With a profile name like laxdad……. You assume they follow the sport of lacrosse. But with so many numbers after the name, there are probably a bunch of profiles with laxdad… followed by some numbers. This particular one must be a football dad that just started watching lacrosse.
Comparing D1/D3 lax to football is a joke.

Here is the reality. Majority of STARTERS on the top 10 D3 schools turned down D1 offers.
There are lower level D1 teams with many players on the roster that would not see the field on top level D3 programs. I can think of 5 kids that were backups on my son’s high school team, that are now playing or committed to low level D1 programs.

The size and speed excuse is a overhyped. My kid played with many kids that are currently playing on top level D1 programs. Playing, not just on the team. And only a few are bigger/faster. Most of them are average size. A few are under 5-8. They are talented. Size is good, but we all can name lots of kids under 5-10, 170lbs, that are making an impact on D1 teams.

[laxdad1434]

This thread cracks me up. With a profile name like laxdad……. You assume they follow the sport of lacrosse. But with so many numbers after the name, there are probably a bunch of profiles with laxdad… followed by some numbers. This particular one must be a football dad that just started watching lacrosse.
Comparing D1/D3 lax to football is a joke.

Here is the reality. Majority of STARTERS on the top 10 D3 schools turned down D1 offers.
There are lower level D1 teams with many players on the roster that would not see the field on top level D3 programs. I can think of 5 kids that were backups on my son’s high school team, that are now playing or committed to low level D1 programs.

The size and speed excuse is a overhyped. My kid played with many kids that are currently playing on top level D1 programs. Playing, not just on the team. And only a few are bigger/faster. Most of them are average size. A few are under 5-8. They are talented. Size is good, but we all can name lots of kids under 5-10, 170lbs, that are making an impact on D1 teams.

Why is the comparison of football and lacrosse a joke? Please think before you respond, a legit answer, not because that's what you think.

And many D1 players turned down Top D3/NESCAC offers. It's personal choice and kids are actually there to learn and get a degree. Schools don't have the major they want, they want a big/small campus, ect.

Your son must have played on a really strong/deep HS team.

So if none of the measurables matter, as you say. Why do coaches/recruiters ask for those measurables during the recruiting process? It's on every recruiting form.

My sons college team has 2 of the most athletic, talented (attack) players I've ever seen. If they were 2-3" taller, and 20-25# heavier, they'd be playing at Rutgers with their HS teammates. There's a reason for different divisions.

[laxdad1434]

This thread cracks me up. With a profile name like laxdad……. You assume they follow the sport of lacrosse. But with so many numbers after the name, there are probably a bunch of profiles with laxdad… followed by some numbers. This particular one must be a football dad that just started watching lacrosse.
Comparing D1/D3 lax to football is a joke.

Here is the reality. Majority of STARTERS on the top 10 D3 schools turned down D1 offers.
There are lower level D1 teams with many players on the roster that would not see the field on top level D3 programs. I can think of 5 kids that were backups on my son’s high school team, that are now playing or committed to low level D1 programs.

The size and speed excuse is a overhyped. My kid played with many kids that are currently playing on top level D1 programs. Playing, not just on the team. And only a few are bigger/faster. Most of them are average size. A few are under 5-8. They are talented. Size is good, but we all can name lots of kids under 5-10, 170lbs, that are making an impact on D1 teams.

Why is the comparison of football and lacrosse a joke? Please think before you respond, a legit answer, not because that's what you think.

And many D1 players turned down Top D3/NESCAC offers. It's personal choice and kids are actually there to learn and get a degree. Schools don't have the major they want, they want a big/small campus, ect.

Your son must have played on a really strong/deep HS team.

So if none of the measurables matter, as you say. Why do coaches/recruiters ask for those measurables during the recruiting process? It's on every recruiting form.

My sons college teammates are 2 of the most athletic, talented (attack) players I've ever seen. If they were 2-3" taller, and 20-25# heavier, they'd be playing at Rutgers with their HS teammates. There's a reason for different divisions.

[pcowlax]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships. If you can’t get recruited by any of the 60 odd FBS teams, there are around 125 FCS teams. Meaning there are a huge number of options for FULL SCHOLARSHIPS. And the majority of top football recruits need that, because they generally come from poor backgrounds (this is of course generalizing but is very much true). So there is going to be a huge drop off going down to D3 where there are no scholarships because virtually everyone who is good enough for D1 will play D1. In lacrosse, virtually no one gets a full scholarship. Thus, most players have to pay if not full way then at least a good part, regardless of playing D1 vs D3. And the playing pool, again generalizing, comes in a large part from a background that CAN pay. So if you are good enough to play at UVA, JHU, ND, Maryland, etc, then you do, and these teams would indeed throttle any D3 team. But if you aren’t…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

[Laxattackjack]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

[ChopMan23]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

This is day 4? Of this argument.

[laxdad1434]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

Does he tie your shoes as well?
The last comparison w/football was with the Ivy's, they don't have scholarships.
The large majority may not have the $$ for NESCAC, most don't. Majors, geography, campus size, play a part as well.
Wagner would beat Middlebury, as would Monmouth and NJIT. Wagner playing in MAAC and against AE, Patriot, is 10x more difficult than playing NESCAC.Wagner losing 20-6 to Army isn't the same as Middlebury losing to Tufts 19-6. Please don't say Tufts would beat Army.

[ChopMan23]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

Does he tie your shoes as well?
The last comparison w/football was with the Ivy's, they don't have scholarships.
The large majority may not have the $$ for NESCAC, most don't. Majors, geography, campus size, play a part as well.
Wagner would beat Middlebury, as would Monmouth and NJIT. Wagner playing in MAAC and against AE, Patriot, is 10x more difficult than playing NESCAC.Wagner losing 20-6 to Army isn't the same as Middlebury losing to Tufts 19-6. Please don't say Tufts would beat Army.

Wagner got killed by Stockton when they scrimmaged lol.

[laxdad1434]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

Does he tie your shoes as well?
The last comparison w/football was with the Ivy's, they don't have scholarships.
The large majority may not have the $$ for NESCAC, most don't. Majors, geography, campus size, play a part as well.
Wagner would beat Middlebury, as would Monmouth and NJIT. Wagner playing in MAAC and against AE, Patriot, is 10x more difficult than playing NESCAC.Wagner losing 20-6 to Army isn't the same as Middlebury losing to Tufts 19-6. Please don't say Tufts would beat Army.

Wagner got killed by Stockton when they scrimmaged lol.

yeah

[SouthieLax]

The feigned confusion as to why lacrosse is different from football is funny. There are so many obvious reasons that it is tedious to list them all but one that hasn’t been discussed enough is scholarships…...

…. If given the choice, a large majority of players and their families would prefer to go to, play at, and graduate from Williams, Tufts, RIT, Gettysburg, etc than Monmouth or Lowell or NJIT or Wagner etc. Why would you pay to go to Wagner and play lacrosse when you could pay to go to Middlebury and play lacrosse? This is how you end up with a sport where the top D3 teams are objectively better than the bottom D1 teams.

100%

Does he tie your shoes as well?
The last comparison w/football was with the Ivy's, they don't have scholarships.
The large majority may not have the $$ for NESCAC, most don't. Majors, geography, campus size, play a part as well.
Wagner would beat Middlebury, as would Monmouth and NJIT. Wagner playing in MAAC and against AE, Patriot, is 10x more difficult than playing NESCAC.Wagner losing 20-6 to Army isn't the same as Middlebury losing to Tufts 19-6. Please don't say Tufts would beat Army.

The Massey match up predictions have: Middlebury 13, Wagner 7; Middlebury 14, NJIT 10; Middlebury 12, Monmouth 10.

You don’t want to know what Tufts would do to those teams.

https://masseyratings.com/game.php?s0=5 ... &oid1=8500

[pcowlax]

Tufts definitely would not beat Army. They would flatten Wagner. Lax is a small world. If you are involved in high level high school lax, you know where the better players from the top high school and club teams go. The guys who play at bottom tier D1 are not stars or starters at top flight high school level programs. The guys who play at the top D3 schools are. It’s really pretty simple. Look where the Wagner roster played in high school. I don’t know what to tell you laxdad, I have to assume you don’t have much experience with hotbeds or high school lacrosse.

[laxdad1434]

Tufts definitely would not beat Army. They would flatten Wagner. Lax is a small world. If you are involved in high level high school lax, you know where the better players from the top high school and club teams go. The guys who play at bottom tier D1 are not stars or starters at top flight high school level programs. The guys who play at the top D3 schools are. It’s really pretty simple. Look where the Wagner roster played in high school. I don’t know what to tell you laxdad, I have to assume you don’t have much experience with hotbeds or high school lacrosse.

Yikes...