High School Boys Lacrosse Coaching Staff Sizes

[gymman1031]

At least for the major conferences, many of the staffs seem to have, including the head coach, 7-10 total coaches. Is this the case all over the country in High School Lacrosse?

[Slim]

In the MIAA A Conference, yes...it's a lot! Coaches running into each other on sidelines and too many messages to spread around. If not on the same page this could be problematic. IMO, 4-5 is ideal.

[kramerica.inc]

In the MIAA A Conference, yes...it's a lot! Coaches running into each other on sidelines and too many messages to spread around. If not on the same page this could be problematic. IMO, 4-5 is ideal.

Agree. Too big and it becomes a circus.
4 is good for smaller rosters, 5 for larger.

Show me a team with 7-10 coaches and I'll show you a team with 5 guys who aren't doing anything productive and a lot of mixed messaging in the program.

[gymman1031]

I agree with all of the above. Personally, I think that the DI College Lacrosse way of a max of four coaches on the sidelines at once is perfect. With these huge staffs, it is like the NFL and College Football have come to High School Lacrosse.

[MDlaxfan76]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

[gymman1031]

I agree with all of the above. Personally, I think that the DI College Lacrosse way of a max of five(sometimes four) coaches on the sidelines at once is perfect. With these huge staffs, it is like the NFL and College Football have come to High School Lacrosse.

[gymman1031]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

[MDlaxfan76]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

[gymman1031]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

[MDlaxfan76]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

Many, many?

Which ones in specific?...I'm not seeing who you mean.

I'm not disagreeing in principle, I'm just not so sure there's actually that many coaches.
Managers, trainers, etc, sure, but actual coaches I'm not seeing.

But you must have some specific programs in mind and must be more current than I am.

Long ago, I posted about how ridiculous it was when the Gilman football coaching staff had swelled to 18 listed staff, many on the former HC's personal payroll, but even with that it's not as if they weren't a very well coached team. But 18, come on...

[gymman1031]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

Many, many?

Which ones in specific?...I'm not seeing who you mean.

I'm not disagreeing in principle, I'm just not so sure there's actually that many coaches.
Managers, trainers, etc, sure, but actual coaches I'm not seeing.

But you must have some specific programs in mind and must be more current than I am.

Long ago, I posted about how ridiculous it was when the Gilman football coaching staff had swelled to 18 listed staff, many on the former HC's personal payroll, but even with that it's not as if they weren't a very well coached team. But 18, come on...

McDonogh, St. Paul's, St. Mary's, and Boys' Latin all had between 7-10 coaches, for sure. I actually think BL may have had ten. And I don't think any of those programs consider their trainers as part of the staff.

[MDlaxfan76]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

Many, many?

Which ones in specific?...I'm not seeing who you mean.

I'm not disagreeing in principle, I'm just not so sure there's actually that many coaches.
Managers, trainers, etc, sure, but actual coaches I'm not seeing.

But you must have some specific programs in mind and must be more current than I am.

Long ago, I posted about how ridiculous it was when the Gilman football coaching staff had swelled to 18 listed staff, many on the former HC's personal payroll, but even with that it's not as if they weren't a very well coached team. But 18, come on...

McDonogh, St. Paul's, St. Mary's, and Boys' Latin all had between 7-10 coaches, for sure. I actually think BL may have had ten. And I don't think any of those programs consider their trainers as part of the staff.

Do any of those list 9-10 actual assistants on their websites? Or maybe on their programs?

I see 5 for BL : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

I see 6 for McD : https://www.mcdonogh.org/athletics/team ... rosse/2703

I do see 7 for St. Paul's : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

And, I do see 8 for St. Mary's : https://www.stmarysannapolis.org/team-d ... eam=150341

Calvert Hall is currently only listing 3, but I'm pretty sure there's more volunteers. Pretty sure Gilman is 5. Sometimes 6. Loyola doesn't seem to list their assistants, just the HC.

When Gilman had 18 football coaches, they actually listed them all on the programs. That seemed embarrassing overkill to me as a Gilman alum, but people had different perspectives on it, I know.

[pcowlax]

They are all overkill but 18 for football is a LOT more reasonable than 10 for high school lacrosse.

[NEWestFan]

For what its worth, NE West teams average around 4 Coaches.

[kramerica.inc]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

Many, many?

Which ones in specific?...I'm not seeing who you mean.

I'm not disagreeing in principle, I'm just not so sure there's actually that many coaches.
Managers, trainers, etc, sure, but actual coaches I'm not seeing.

But you must have some specific programs in mind and must be more current than I am.

Long ago, I posted about how ridiculous it was when the Gilman football coaching staff had swelled to 18 listed staff, many on the former HC's personal payroll, but even with that it's not as if they weren't a very well coached team. But 18, come on...

McDonogh, St. Paul's, St. Mary's, and Boys' Latin all had between 7-10 coaches, for sure. I actually think BL may have had ten. And I don't think any of those programs consider their trainers as part of the staff.

Do any of those list 9-10 actual assistants on their websites? Or maybe on their programs?

I see 5 for BL : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

I see 6 for McD : https://www.mcdonogh.org/athletics/team ... rosse/2703

I do see 7 for St. Paul's : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

And, I do see 8 for St. Mary's : https://www.stmarysannapolis.org/team-d ... eam=150341

Calvert Hall is currently only listing 3, but I'm pretty sure there's more volunteers. Pretty sure Gilman is 5. Sometimes 6. Loyola doesn't seem to list their assistants, just the HC.

When Gilman had 18 football coaches, they actually listed them all on the programs. That seemed embarrassing overkill to me as a Gilman alum, but people had different perspectives on it, I know.

I believe most of those schools you listed have more assistants than listed on their websites. Most are volunteers or receive small stipends. Many are "part timers" who show up when their jobs and families allow- Certain days of the week, 1-2 days a week, only on gamedays, weekend only, etc.
Head coaches generally have to piecemeal a staff together to get the coverage they need to accomplish their program goals.

For some that might be 4 "full timers" and others it might be 2-3 full timers + 4 part-timers. Really depends.

[KI Dock Bar]

How about how many coaches are "parent coaches" and are coaching their children? It never happened in my years 1987-1997 at Loyola Blakefield, a catholic school. In my years 2000-2019 at Kent Island, a public school, it happened. Is that becoming the norm?

[Unknown Participant]

How about how many coaches are "parent coaches" and are coaching their children? It never happened in my years 1987-1997 at Loyola Blakefield, a catholic school. In my years 2000-2019 at Kent Island, a public school, it happened. Is that becoming the norm?

Good point. In a lot of cases a dad (or mom) who was an athlete has coached his child and other peoples' children in various sports since the age of 6 or so in rec/town, myself included.

For me, when my oldest son started playing HS lax (a top tier non hot-bed HS team in FLA), I said hi to the varsity coach, introduced myself and never said another word, but kept coaching my youngest son in rec. When my youngest son started playing JV, the varsity coach asked me if I was still coaching, I said no way as it was a huge time suck. A year later, the coach left for greener pastures and some parents convinced me to coach, which I did. My son was the non starting GK. Absent unusual circumstances (like that), I would never want a parent as a coach.

Later, as a head HS coach, I wanted parents (dads) as far away as possible. They generally had good intentions, but, w/some exceptions, caused more problems than they were worth, like the time I restrung a GK back up stick at half time of a game because the primary stick broke and the back up had so much whip it was unusable to throw an outlet. The dad ripped me a new one on email/text about if "If I bought the stick don't touch it." I spent $150 on a professionally strung stick the next day and gave it to the GK and told him the school paid for it. Great kid. Dad is a good guy too, but HS sports brings out the worst ...

[MDlaxfan76]

I somewhat disagree as I'm not so sure which team has so many coaches that it's actually a problem.

Most of the top echelon in the MIAA "A" have 5-7, including volunteer assistants.
Some may have a couple more volunteers, from time to time.

I don't think they're less well-coached than teams with a total of 4. Indeed, what the higher numbers allow, if they're good, is the speciality positions to have true specialty expertise coached. Often some of these volunteers are relatively recent college players.

Organization on the sidelines is a matter of HC leadership and preparation of the staff. Each main assistant should have a very specific role.

What observers may sometimes see is one or more volunteers who have helped occasionally be down on the sideline as well; again the HC needs to prepare them for what they can do to help in their own area of expertise, particularly with players off the field. A ton of learning can happen with players off the field.

There may also be athletic trainers and other staff on the sidelines.

I think D1 is 5 actual coaches.
That's not because that's the optimal #, rather it's to try to have some parity between programs that have more difficulty affording more with those with relatively unlimited resources.

My own sense is that 'optimal' would be HC, D, O, G, FO and box. 6. And perhaps a young volunteer or two who bring recent college exposure to the HS kids as well as particular expertise.

The key is to be actually coaching, with defined roles.

Maybe it isn't always a problem. I just simply think having 7 to 10-men coaching staffs for high school lacrosse is overdoing it and not necessary. However, if those programs are successful, all the power to them.

But which actually have more than 7?

And do any of those struggle with organizing them?

MANY, MANY of the MIAA "A" Conference programs do. Yes, that is one of the best conferences in America. Not sure about organizing difficulties. I just think it isn't necessary.

Many, many?

Which ones in specific?...I'm not seeing who you mean.

I'm not disagreeing in principle, I'm just not so sure there's actually that many coaches.
Managers, trainers, etc, sure, but actual coaches I'm not seeing.

But you must have some specific programs in mind and must be more current than I am.

Long ago, I posted about how ridiculous it was when the Gilman football coaching staff had swelled to 18 listed staff, many on the former HC's personal payroll, but even with that it's not as if they weren't a very well coached team. But 18, come on...

McDonogh, St. Paul's, St. Mary's, and Boys' Latin all had between 7-10 coaches, for sure. I actually think BL may have had ten. And I don't think any of those programs consider their trainers as part of the staff.

Do any of those list 9-10 actual assistants on their websites? Or maybe on their programs?

I see 5 for BL : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

I see 6 for McD : https://www.mcdonogh.org/athletics/team ... rosse/2703

I do see 7 for St. Paul's : https://www.stpaulsmd.org/boys/athletic ... eam-id/209

And, I do see 8 for St. Mary's : https://www.stmarysannapolis.org/team-d ... eam=150341

Calvert Hall is currently only listing 3, but I'm pretty sure there's more volunteers. Pretty sure Gilman is 5. Sometimes 6. Loyola doesn't seem to list their assistants, just the HC.

When Gilman had 18 football coaches, they actually listed them all on the programs. That seemed embarrassing overkill to me as a Gilman alum, but people had different perspectives on it, I know.

I believe most of those schools you listed have more assistants than listed on their websites. Most are volunteers or receive small stipends. Many are "part timers" who show up when their jobs and families allow- Certain days of the week, 1-2 days a week, only on gamedays, weekend only, etc.
Head coaches generally have to piecemeal a staff together to get the coverage they need to accomplish their program goals.

For some that might be 4 "full timers" and others it might be 2-3 full timers + 4 part-timers. Really depends.

right, that's my sense as well.

I asked my Gilman '12 son last night and he said they had 3 defense coaches, two offense and the HC. Two of D were volunteers with FT jobs, eg Damien Davis, Gilman, Princeton d-man.

[MDlaxfan76]

How about how many coaches are "parent coaches" and are coaching their children? It never happened in my years 1987-1997 at Loyola Blakefield, a catholic school. In my years 2000-2019 at Kent Island, a public school, it happened. Is that becoming the norm?

At least in MIAA A, it's pretty darn rare in lacrosse.

I can imagine an area with fewer experienced former players and coaches, it's take whatever help you can get.

But in MIAA, most lax parents stop directly coaching their kids by the time they hit HS and are in the club scene and formal HS programs. They might help out with a club, but at least when we were doing it (sheesh, now 15+ years ago!) most of us helped or ran rec programs but knew it was better if another adult took over at some point, typically in or at end of middle school age.

Of course, some parents are a bit nuts and try to insert themselves more, but that's rare and usually the HS coaches don't want that complication on the sideline. Hard enough when they're in the stands.

[MDlaxfan76]

How about how many coaches are "parent coaches" and are coaching their children? It never happened in my years 1987-1997 at Loyola Blakefield, a catholic school. In my years 2000-2019 at Kent Island, a public school, it happened. Is that becoming the norm?

Good point. In a lot of cases a dad (or mom) who was an athlete has coached his child and other peoples' children in various sports since the age of 6 or so in rec/town, myself included.

For me, when my oldest son started playing HS lax (a top tier non hot-bed HS team in FLA), I said hi to the varsity coach, introduced myself and never said another word, but kept coaching my youngest son in rec. When my youngest son started playing JV, the varsity coach asked me if I was still coaching, I said no way as it was a huge time suck. A year later, the coach left for greener pastures and some parents convinced me to coach, which I did. My son was the non starting GK. Absent unusual circumstances (like that), I would never want a parent as a coach.

Later, as a head HS coach, I wanted parents (dads) as far away as possible. They generally had good intentions, but, w/some exceptions, caused more problems than they were worth, like the time I restrung a GK back up stick at half time of a game because the primary stick broke and the back up had so much whip it was unusable to throw an outlet. The dad ripped me a new one on email/text about if "If I bought the stick don't touch it." I spent $150 on a professionally strung stick the next day and gave it to the GK and told him the school paid for it. Great kid. Dad is a good guy too, but HS sports brings out the worst ...

Indeed.