Top 25 for 2024

[Sportin' Life]

US Lax does that, but I think it is hard to know which schools actually have post-grad kids on their roster.

Yes, they don't have schools that accept PGs, but I think it's safe to assume there are 19 year olds on a team unless it's a public school. Even then there's no assurances with parents often waiting an extra year to send boys to kindergarten.

US Lacrosse has released their regional rankings: https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/hi ... 0-rankings
No NE West 1 boarding schools, but they do have Brunswick.

L'ville and Culver accept PGs so would love to know the logic for US Lacrosse to include them but omit New England boarding schools from its rankings.

[MA Lax Fan]

Are you sure L’ville and Culver accept PG’s? I’m sure they have re-classes up the wazoo but not sure about post grads.

[Sportin' Life]

My mistake, Culver doesn't take PGs. However L'ville does so would like to know USA Lacrosse's rational for including it but not New England boarding schools in its rankings.

[coda]

US Lax does that, but I think it is hard to know which schools actually have post-grad kids on their roster.

Yes, they don't have schools that accept PGs, but I think it's safe to assume there are 19 year olds on a team unless it's a public school. Even then there's no assurances with parents often waiting an extra year to send boys to kindergarten.

US Lacrosse has released their regional rankings: https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/hi ... 0-rankings
No NE West 1 boarding schools, but they do have Brunswick.

L'ville and Culver accept PGs so would love to know the logic for US Lacrosse to include them but omit New England boarding schools from its rankings.

LVille does not take PGs.. There was not single one on last years squad or this years. LVille can take them, Posner does not like them

[Superlite]

I believe L'Ville lost out on some PG's because they were told that they had to be lacrosse only (no other sports allowed).

TBH, from a business angle, it is better to take a repeat player who can give you 2-3 years in your system. It is understandable.

US Lax does that, but I think it is hard to know which schools actually have post-grad kids on their roster.

Yes, they don't have schools that accept PGs, but I think it's safe to assume there are 19 year olds on a team unless it's a public school. Even then there's no assurances with parents often waiting an extra year to send boys to kindergarten.

US Lacrosse has released their regional rankings: https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/hi ... 0-rankings
No NE West 1 boarding schools, but they do have Brunswick.

L'ville and Culver accept PGs so would love to know the logic for US Lacrosse to include them but omit New England boarding schools from its rankings.

LVille does not take PGs.. There was not single one on last years squad or this years. LVille can take them, Posner does not like them

[pcowlax]

US Lax does that, but I think it is hard to know which schools actually have post-grad kids on their roster.

Yes, they don't have schools that accept PGs, but I think it's safe to assume there are 19 year olds on a team unless it's a public school. Even then there's no assurances with parents often waiting an extra year to send boys to kindergarten.

US Lacrosse has released their regional rankings: https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/hi ... 0-rankings
No NE West 1 boarding schools, but they do have Brunswick.

L'ville and Culver accept PGs so would love to know the logic for US Lacrosse to include them but omit New England boarding schools from its rankings.

LVille does not take PGs.. There was not single one on last years squad or this years. LVille can take them, Posner does not like them

Not sure about this year's roster but they most certainly have taken numerous PGs over the years. The rankings that exclude PG schools generally do not look year to year at the rosters (which often aren't out when these early rankings are made) but go based on the schools' general rules, which, for L'Ville, is PGs allowed.

[coda]

US Lax does that, but I think it is hard to know which schools actually have post-grad kids on their roster.

Yes, they don't have schools that accept PGs, but I think it's safe to assume there are 19 year olds on a team unless it's a public school. Even then there's no assurances with parents often waiting an extra year to send boys to kindergarten.

US Lacrosse has released their regional rankings: https://www.usalacrosse.com/magazine/hi ... 0-rankings
No NE West 1 boarding schools, but they do have Brunswick.

L'ville and Culver accept PGs so would love to know the logic for US Lacrosse to include them but omit New England boarding schools from its rankings.

LVille does not take PGs.. There was not single one on last years squad or this years. LVille can take them, Posner does not like them

Not sure about this year's roster but they most certainly have taken numerous PGs over the years. The rankings that exclude PG schools generally do not look year to year at the rosters (which often aren't out when these early rankings are made) but go based on the schools' general rules, which, for L'Ville, is PGs allowed.

They may have. I can tell you there has not been any in the last 2 years. The pollsters have realized that also (US Lax added them about mid-season last year), so the criticisms that LVille has PGs on their Boys Lacrosse team is patently incorrect.

[kramerica.inc]

The Hill Academy (Ont) is another that has PGs and is regularly ranked among the top HS teams.

[Sportin' Life]

Thanks coda. Whether or not L'ville admits PGs and Posner's attitude about having them on his team are two entirely different things. The former is mos def true and the latter may explain why USA Lacrosse includes the school in its rankings. It seems odd that when considering the best HS teams to omit certain ones based on whether or not they have PGs. I respect the discretion of USA Lacrosse to determine the (dis)qualifications for inclusion in its rankings however I think the efficacy of the result is questionable. BTW, my assertion that L'ville accepts PGs was not at all intended as a criticism, just a statement of fact.

[random observer]

In the case of Lawrenceville, the PG thing is all semantics. The vast majority of their players are reclasses; Chris Matia was a junior on the 2022 team, and is now a senior in 2024, so it's really no different than if he had stayed at Lawrenceville another year to do a PG.

[coda]

In the case of Lawrenceville, the PG thing is all semantics. The vast majority of their players are reclasses; Chris Matia was a junior on the 2022 team, and is now a senior in 2024, so it's really no different than if he had stayed at Lawrenceville another year to do a PG.

That is true. He had medical issues between 21-22 seasons, missed the 22 season, and reclassed. No idea if that was his 1st reclass or not.

[Run2theEL]

My mistake, Culver doesn't take PGs. However L'ville does so would like to know USA Lacrosse's rational for including it but not New England boarding schools in its rankings.

US lacrosse seems to be uniformed on the high school side of things. Having St. Paul’s ranked above Calvert Hall just shows a pure lack of awareness to what has been going on for the last five years. St. Paul’s is perhaps the most storied program in high school lacrosse, but a top 25 team in the country they certainly are not and haven’t been for a while. IL and NLF seem to have a better understanding of the current landscape.

[FairLax]

It is really so silly, there should simply be two polls, one for Private Schools (of any kind) and one for Publics. It does not matter if you take PG's or not, Wick, L'Ville etc while they do not have PG's many of the kids have re-classed which is fine, do not have any issues with that at all, but they should not be compared to a school that simply pulls from the students who live in a particular town. Do people move to these hotbed towns for Lacrosse, yes they do, but they are legit residents, and their kids are of the appropriate age. Schools like Chaminade and St A's might not have PG's or re-classes but they are pulling from all over LI so to compare them to publics does a disservice to the Publics. Same goes for the MIAA.

[3rdPersonPlural]

It is really so silly, there should simply be two polls, one for Private Schools (of any kind) and one for Publics. It does not matter if you take PG's or not, Wick, L'Ville etc while they do not have PG's many of the kids have re-classed which is fine, do not have any issues with that at all, but they should not be compared to a school that simply pulls from the students who live in a particular town. Do people move to these hotbed towns for Lacrosse, yes they do, but they are legit residents, and their kids are of the appropriate age. Schools like Chaminade and St A's might not have PG's or re-classes but they are pulling from all over LI so to compare them to publics does a disservice to the Publics. Same goes for the MIAA.

I'm fine with 2 polls, but then the question would become 'at what point in the private school poll do the public schools enter?

#10?

#20?

Would anyone suggest that the best public school is in the top 5 or 10?

Everyone just cares about the top grade poll. #1 in a poll which only includes teams that are #10 and below is less exciting.

Question: What happens when some kid reclasses at a public school for some reason and also is really good at lacrosse? Now are they tossed out of the tier 2 group?

How do we compare public schools with 2000 students to schools with 500 students? Do we need another layer here?

Occam's razor suggests that we just rank the flippin' teams. Those who want to only consider teams that don't reclass and don't PG and don't allow kids who turn 19 that year to play can do their own poll, but the way things are going, even kids who are 19 years old are still in high school. If I had new babies, I'd have then enter kindergarten as late as possible. So would most of you.

So we ask for a filter. Done deal!

[random observer]

It is really so silly, there should simply be two polls, one for Private Schools (of any kind) and one for Publics. It does not matter if you take PG's or not, Wick, L'Ville etc while they do not have PG's many of the kids have re-classed which is fine, do not have any issues with that at all, but they should not be compared to a school that simply pulls from the students who live in a particular town. Do people move to these hotbed towns for Lacrosse, yes they do, but they are legit residents, and their kids are of the appropriate age. Schools like Chaminade and St A's might not have PG's or re-classes but they are pulling from all over LI so to compare them to publics does a disservice to the Publics. Same goes for the MIAA.

I'm fine with 2 polls, but then the question would become 'at what point in the private school poll do the public schools enter?

#10?

#20?

Would anyone suggest that the best public school is in the top 5 or 10?

Everyone just cares about the top grade poll. #1 in a poll which only includes teams that are #10 and below is less exciting.

Question: What happens when some kid reclasses at a public school for some reason and also is really good at lacrosse? Now are they tossed out of the tier 2 group?

How do we compare public schools with 2000 students to schools with 500 students? Do we need another layer here?

Occam's razor suggests that we just rank the flippin' teams. Those who want to only consider teams that don't reclass and don't PG and don't allow kids who turn 19 that year to play can do their own poll, but the way things are going, even kids who are 19 years old are still in high school. If I had new babies, I'd have then enter kindergarten as late as possible. So would most of you.

So we ask for a filter. Done deal!

As much as the landscape has shifted dramatically in favor of prep schools, I still contend that the best public schools can and do still compete with the prep schools, and I think to not have an overall ranking list for all programs is a disservice to said public school teams. It implies not that they are operating on a different playing field, but that they can't compete, which is absolutely not true. This narrative persists because there is an inherent evaluation bias against the public schools because they don't have a factory of D1 recruits; there are plenty of prep school kids that have ACC/B1G/Ivy names on their commit page who never play meaningful minutes at the next level, and plenty of public school kids going to lesser schools who then blow up in college and often get poached by the power programs. So at the beginning of the year when people make a pre-season list, of course they're going to include the MIAA team with 15 D1 commits over the public school power with half as many, even if it's not reflective of their relative talent. At the end of the day, I can't remember a single year where the best public school team wasn't among the 10 best in the country at year's end.

looking back just to 2023, Radnor may have been the best team period in PA , and they look to be strong again this year. Victor made the long trek from Rochester to Baltimore and split with two MIAA playoff teams. Darien had one of its worst teams in decades and still took down Brunswick -- they return almost their entire lineup and should be a threat to anyone in 2024. Manhasset got clipped in OT by Chaminade, but on the whole they were a nailed on top 10 team. We no longer have a dozen public schools on LI who can take down anyone on their day, but the best publics can and still do go toe-to-toe with the best privates/preps.

[MA Lax Fan]

If we are going to allow PG schools in the national rankings then why stop there? Let’s also include Junior Colleges in the rankings.

The kids are roughly the same age at AOF and Taft as they are at Onondaga CC.

[Finster]

If we are going to allow PG schools in the national rankings then why stop there? Let’s also include Junior Colleges in the rankings.

The kids are roughly the same age at AOF and Taft as they are at Onondaga CC.

I made varsity as a sophomore, made first midfield after just one game; beating seniors on both my team and opposing teams was my toxic trait. I never thought seniors were larger nor stronger, definitely not faster. Like many washed up middle aged men, some of my best memories are from that one year. I loved the challenge.

I’ve got no allegiance to any post-grad boarding school. Many kids starting in 10th grade are just as big, strong, and fast as post-grads. Think of Brennan O’Neill at St Anthony’s. Some sophomores are way lacrosse-smarter than PG’s.

I think the PG debate is for the most part overhyped and overdramatized. The only time I buy your argument is when refs allow a goon who happens to be a PG to head-hunt; but I blame refs for allowing it more than I think it supports your argument.

[pcowlax]

If we are going to allow PG schools in the national rankings then why stop there? Let’s also include Junior Colleges in the rankings.

The kids are roughly the same age at AOF and Taft as they are at Onondaga CC.

I’m assuming this is sarcasm. You realize of course that “PG schools” are not teams of PGs. This isn’t Brewster or NAPS we are talking about. 4 PGs is about the most a school will have. It certainly is an advantage but it is NOT because of age. It’s because these are kids who have already proved they are stars at the high school level. It’s like being able to pick a transfer vs rolling the dice on a recruit in college.

[Superlite]

NAPS, Bridgton, are PG teams (actual purpose of the school). Brewster maybe had 2-3 PG's on their team last year (one went to Villanova)...It is not a PG school..Exeter had 6-7, similar to a heavier PG roster on a NE West team.

If we are going to allow PG schools in the national rankings then why stop there? Let’s also include Junior Colleges in the rankings.

The kids are roughly the same age at AOF and Taft as they are at Onondaga CC.

I’m assuming this is sarcasm. You realize of course that “PG schools” are not teams of PGs. This isn’t Brewster or NAPS we are talking about. 4 PGs is about the most a school will have. It certainly is an advantage but it is NOT because of age. It’s because these are kids who have already proved they are stars at the high school level. It’s like being able to pick a transfer vs rolling the dice on a recruit in college.

[pcowlax]

NAPS, Bridgton, are PG teams (tactual purpose of the school). Brewster maybe had 2-3 PG's on their team last year (one went to Villanova)...It is not a PG school..Exeter had 6-7, similar to a heavier PG roster on a NE West team.

If we are going to allow PG schools in the national rankings then why stop there? Let’s also include Junior Colleges in the rankings.

The kids are roughly the same age at AOF and Taft as they are at Onondaga CC.

I’m assuming this is sarcasm. You realize of course that “PG schools” are not teams of PGs. This isn’t Brewster or NAPS we are talking about. 4 PGs is about the most a school will have. It certainly is an advantage but it is NOT because of age. It’s because these are kids who have already proved they are stars at the high school level. It’s like being able to pick a transfer vs rolling the dice on a recruit in college.

My bad, you are right, I meant Bridgton. 6-7 PGs would be almost unheard of at a NE West School