Recruiting

[laxfan9999]

Rutgers is 15. Rutgers-Camden is not the right school. Rutgers- New Brunswick is 15 and that is the Big Ten school.

[njbill]

Big difference, huge difference, between Rutgers Camden and the main campus of Rutgers, which is in New Brunswick. I imagine the same or similar thing applies to many of the state schools if you compare their main campuses to their satellite schools.

[WLAXFAN778899]

Agree on everything except one point. What's wrong with Clemson's academic reputation? It's a #43 public school in the nation, ahead of schools like USF, Rutgers, Oregon, Colorado, George Mason, both Arizona schools, JMU, etc. Not to mention, I've heard their Career Center is always rated the best in the nation almost every year.

Believe this is false based on the 2024 US News rankings. For starters, Rutgers is the 15th ranked public university in the country with Florida and UMd also in the top 20. Clemson is 43 on the list. One can always argue with these rankings as Penn State ranked at 28 with the strength of the alumni network seems a bit crazy.

Rutgers Camden was below Clemson. Everything else was correct.

Thanks for clarifying, the Rutgers Camden Scarlet Raptors (incredible mascot!) are D3 and don’t have women’s lacrosse. Living in NJ now, I actually didn’t realize what a good, nationally recognized academic institution Rutgers New Brunswick (Scarlet Knights, Big10) is so thought I would share. Top 15 public university is surprising and impressive even to me. And yes of course, one can look at lots of different lists and factors that matter to each individual in terms of what is most important.

[njbill]

Alas, you are right, Rutgers-Camden does not currently have women’s lacrosse, but they did up until a year or so ago. 2022 was their last season. Someone I know was hired to be the coach of the program, but then the program folded. Not sure exactly what the reason was, but she was quite disappointed (understandably) and would’ve been a terrific coach.

[LaxDadMax]

Agree on everything except one point. What's wrong with Clemson's academic reputation? It's a #43 public school in the nation, ahead of schools like USF, Rutgers, Oregon, Colorado, George Mason, both Arizona schools, JMU, etc. Not to mention, I've heard their Career Center is always rated the best in the nation almost every year.

Believe this is false based on the 2024 US News rankings. For starters, Rutgers is the 15th ranked public university in the country with Florida and UMd also in the top 20. Clemson is 43 on the list. One can always argue with these rankings as Penn State ranked at 28 with the strength of the alumni network seems a bit crazy.

Rutgers Camden was below Clemson. Everything else was correct.

Think it all depends on what list you are looking at and priorities. Assuming the girls want a big school, bigtime football, and a high employment and salary after college then the list is different than basic academics. Maryland and Virginia (although arguable football), USC, Notre Dame, and Michigan are in the top of that list(top120). Ohio state, Florida, Clemson, UNC, and Penn state(top 240) are the next level down. And Oregon, UNC, then Florida state are next after a significantly Drop. (Top 360).

As the father of a daughter who recently played big ten lacrosse at a football school, I can tell you big time football shouldn't be a reason to attend. Over 5 years, my daughter attended only 9 games (and 5 of them were with recruits). With Fall ball, prospect days, other lax committments most girls will miss more than half of their school's home games. (This may be different if you are a school who plays primarily night games.)

[forthelaxofit]

My daughter also went to what people here would call a "football" school and had the same situation as you. Went to more games with recruits than she did without recruits. Missed some for fall ball. Had no interest in going to the blowout matchups. A lot of people like talking about the football draw - and maybe that is true for some girls, but sometimes I wonder if that is more true for their parents? As far as my daughter and her teammates, they went to more men soccer and baseball games than football or basketball. Boyfriends may have had something to do with that...

[MDstateMan]

My daughter also went to what people here would call a "football" school and had the same situation as you. Went to more games with recruits than she did without recruits. Missed some for fall ball. Had no interest in going to the blowout matchups. A lot of people like talking about the football draw - and maybe that is true for some girls, but sometimes I wonder if that is more true for their parents? As far as my daughter and her teammates, they went to more men soccer and baseball games than football or basketball. Boyfriends may have had something to do with that...

I got to be honest, my 15 yr old doesn't know the difference between a Notre Dame or Duke in terms of football prestige, but she does know its a social scene to go to and they are on TV. Heck, a JMU home game has that vibe if they want to go to a "football school". I do think you can get that same feel at most Ivy league home football games.

[laxdadpat]

Going to a big-time football school is as much about after college than during. I choose academics over the size of the college but envy a lot of friends that are alumni of great football schools(great academics also). I didn't even think of that while in high school, but worth taking into consideration.

[Bystanders]

Back with one final look this year at how the ILWomen top 100 have performed so far, this time for the 2023 class. Maybe a bit premature since the future GOAT didn't play this year, but here we are. Here are the links to analyses for other classes from earlier this summer.
2019: viewtopic.php?p=565927#p565927
2020: viewtopic.php?p=568327#p568327
2021: viewtopic.php?p=569566#p569566
2022: viewtopic.php?p=572254#p572254
Without further ado, here is how the 2023 class stacks up so far.
All-Conference: Aliya Polisky, #14, Stanford
Ava Bleckley, #20, James Madison
Starter: Natalie Shurtleff, #2, Clemson
Lydia Colasante, #3, Boston College
Bella Goodwin, #7, Duke
Kaci Benoit, #12, Syracuse
Regan Byrne, #13, Clemson
Ashley Dyer, #22, Florida
Avery Ruhnke, #30, Loyola
Sydney Grogan, #36, Yale
Katie Clare, #42, Yale
Kelly MacKinney, #45, Penn State
Kate Demark, WL, Virginia
Kate Galica, WL, Virginia
Felicia Giglio, WL, Navy
Codi Johnson, WL, Brown
Sydney Manning, WL, Penn State
Anna Regan, WL, USC
Stella Shea, WL, Harvard
Contributor: Maisy Clevenger, #6, Maryland
Gabrielle Koury, #9, Florida
Eva Ingrilli, #17, North Carolina
Caitlin Barrett, #18, Duke
Kate Timarky, #19, Notre Dame
GraceAnn Leonard, #23, North Carolina
Ava Arceri, #24, Stanford
Jasmine Stanton, #26, Clemson
Samantha Hughes, #27, Florida
Isa Torres, #28, Virginia Tech
Ellie Burdick, #29, Dartmouth
Alexandra Schneider, #33, Virginia
Madison Alaimo, #39, Virginia
Reese Robinson, #40, Rutgers
Haydin Eisfeld, #47, Stony Brook
Blair Byrne, #49, Clemson
Madison Smith, #50, Northwestern
Allyx Berry, WL, Jacksonville
Joely Caramelli, WL, Syracuse
Ava Connaughton, WL, UMass
Noel Cumberland, WL, Northwestern
Jenna DiNardo, WL, Virginia
Molly Driscoll, WL, Boston College
Addi Foster, WL, Virginia
Karina Herrera, WL, Yale
Taylor Hoss, WL, Johns Hopkins
Ellie Johnson, WL, Stanford
Kaley Kakac, WL, Johns Hopkins
Paige Kelly, WL, North Carolina
Ashley Kiernan, WL, Yale
Lauren LaPointe, WL, Maryland
Mary Kate Lescault, WL, Johns Hopkins
Mackayla Macleod, WL, Clemson
Mikaela Mooney, WL, UAlbany
Meg Morrisroe, WL, Princeton
Meghan O’Hare, WL, Notre Dame
Kyra Obert, WL, Denver
Camryn Pfundstein, WL, Clemson
Colette Quinn, WL, Princeton
Olivia Ripple, WL, Denver
Avery Roberts, WL, North Carolina
Payton Tini, WL, Rutgers
Madison Weybrecht, WL, James Madison
Ellie White, WL, Duke
Reese Woodworth, WL, Duke
Some takeaways:
-Like the 2022 class, no players were AAs as freshman. Of the 3 years I've done this, Emma LoPinto is the only freshman top 100 player so far to be an AA. Just shows how hard it is to dominate as a freshman.
-The top 100 had at least 19 players reach starter designation, slightly behind 2022 (20) and ahead of 2021 (13). Only 2 players were all-conference, which is behind both previous top 100s.
-However, 64 players reached contributor status, which is well ahead of the previous two top 100s after their freshman season. Combine that with the lack of all-conference players, and maybe it's a sign that players were standing out but weren't emerging as stars due to all the COVID years.
-Impressed with what Virginia and Yale have done so far. Would also keep an eye on Clemson and North Carolina's classes,
-6 of the top 11 recruits didn't really make an impact as freshmen. Not sure if it means much, but is something to keep an eye on.
Thanks to everyone for following along. I try to do this to provide some insight and show that even if the specific numerical rankings aren't always right, ILWomen generally does a decent job ranking players. I'm sure a lot on here will still complain about how recruiting rankings don't matter, but hopefully this sparked some conversation once again.

Impressive work. Also agree that the “extra” Covid upperclass players crowded out some high end achievement. I would agree that a good amount of those 64 will be moving up the next two seasons. Learning from four years above them could make this a strong class by senior year.

[LaxDadMax]

Back with one final look this year at how the ILWomen top 100 have performed so far, this time for the 2023 class. Maybe a bit premature since the future GOAT didn't play this year, but here we are. Here are the links to analyses for other classes from earlier this summer.
2019: viewtopic.php?p=565927#p565927
2020: viewtopic.php?p=568327#p568327
2021: viewtopic.php?p=569566#p569566
2022: viewtopic.php?p=572254#p572254
Without further ado, here is how the 2023 class stacks up so far.
All-Conference: Aliya Polisky, #14, Stanford
Ava Bleckley, #20, James Madison
Starter: Natalie Shurtleff, #2, Clemson
Lydia Colasante, #3, Boston College
Bella Goodwin, #7, Duke
Kaci Benoit, #12, Syracuse
Regan Byrne, #13, Clemson
Ashley Dyer, #22, Florida
Avery Ruhnke, #30, Loyola
Sydney Grogan, #36, Yale
Katie Clare, #42, Yale
Kelly MacKinney, #45, Penn State
Kate Demark, WL, Virginia
Kate Galica, WL, Virginia
Felicia Giglio, WL, Navy
Codi Johnson, WL, Brown
Sydney Manning, WL, Penn State
Anna Regan, WL, USC
Stella Shea, WL, Harvard
Contributor: Maisy Clevenger, #6, Maryland
Gabrielle Koury, #9, Florida
Eva Ingrilli, #17, North Carolina
Caitlin Barrett, #18, Duke
Kate Timarky, #19, Notre Dame
GraceAnn Leonard, #23, North Carolina
Ava Arceri, #24, Stanford
Jasmine Stanton, #26, Clemson
Samantha Hughes, #27, Florida
Isa Torres, #28, Virginia Tech
Ellie Burdick, #29, Dartmouth
Alexandra Schneider, #33, Virginia
Madison Alaimo, #39, Virginia
Reese Robinson, #40, Rutgers
Haydin Eisfeld, #47, Stony Brook
Blair Byrne, #49, Clemson
Madison Smith, #50, Northwestern
Allyx Berry, WL, Jacksonville
Joely Caramelli, WL, Syracuse
Ava Connaughton, WL, UMass
Noel Cumberland, WL, Northwestern
Jenna DiNardo, WL, Virginia
Molly Driscoll, WL, Boston College
Addi Foster, WL, Virginia
Karina Herrera, WL, Yale
Taylor Hoss, WL, Johns Hopkins
Ellie Johnson, WL, Stanford
Kaley Kakac, WL, Johns Hopkins
Paige Kelly, WL, North Carolina
Ashley Kiernan, WL, Yale
Lauren LaPointe, WL, Maryland
Mary Kate Lescault, WL, Johns Hopkins
Mackayla Macleod, WL, Clemson
Mikaela Mooney, WL, UAlbany
Meg Morrisroe, WL, Princeton
Meghan O’Hare, WL, Notre Dame
Kyra Obert, WL, Denver
Camryn Pfundstein, WL, Clemson
Colette Quinn, WL, Princeton
Olivia Ripple, WL, Denver
Avery Roberts, WL, North Carolina
Payton Tini, WL, Rutgers
Madison Weybrecht, WL, James Madison
Ellie White, WL, Duke
Reese Woodworth, WL, Duke
Some takeaways:
-Like the 2022 class, no players were AAs as freshman. Of the 3 years I've done this, Emma LoPinto is the only freshman top 100 player so far to be an AA. Just shows how hard it is to dominate as a freshman.
-The top 100 had at least 19 players reach starter designation, slightly behind 2022 (20) and ahead of 2021 (13). Only 2 players were all-conference, which is behind both previous top 100s.
-However, 64 players reached contributor status, which is well ahead of the previous two top 100s after their freshman season. Combine that with the lack of all-conference players, and maybe it's a sign that players were standing out but weren't emerging as stars due to all the COVID years.
-Impressed with what Virginia and Yale have done so far. Would also keep an eye on Clemson and North Carolina's classes,
-6 of the top 11 recruits didn't really make an impact as freshmen. Not sure if it means much, but is something to keep an eye on.
Thanks to everyone for following along. I try to do this to provide some insight and show that even if the specific numerical rankings aren't always right, ILWomen generally does a decent job ranking players. I'm sure a lot on here will still complain about how recruiting rankings don't matter, but hopefully this sparked some conversation once again.

Impressive work. Also agree that the “extra” Covid upperclass players crowded out some high end achievement. I would agree that a good amount of those 64 will be moving up the next two seasons. Learning from four years above them could make this a strong class by senior year.

Great analysis. A few small nitpicks -- a few of your contributors who O-middies who came in whenever the draw was won so they were starters for practical intent.

What's also interesting is there were some impact freshman who didn't make this list -- is it big school bias of were these freshman really surprises?

[jff97]

Back with one final look this year at how the ILWomen top 100 have performed so far, this time for the 2023 class. Maybe a bit premature since the future GOAT didn't play this year, but here we are. Here are the links to analyses for other classes from earlier this summer.
2019: viewtopic.php?p=565927#p565927
2020: viewtopic.php?p=568327#p568327
2021: viewtopic.php?p=569566#p569566
2022: viewtopic.php?p=572254#p572254
Without further ado, here is how the 2023 class stacks up so far.
All-Conference: Aliya Polisky, #14, Stanford
Ava Bleckley, #20, James Madison
Starter: Natalie Shurtleff, #2, Clemson
Lydia Colasante, #3, Boston College
Bella Goodwin, #7, Duke
Kaci Benoit, #12, Syracuse
Regan Byrne, #13, Clemson
Ashley Dyer, #22, Florida
Avery Ruhnke, #30, Loyola
Sydney Grogan, #36, Yale
Katie Clare, #42, Yale
Kelly MacKinney, #45, Penn State
Kate Demark, WL, Virginia
Kate Galica, WL, Virginia
Felicia Giglio, WL, Navy
Codi Johnson, WL, Brown
Sydney Manning, WL, Penn State
Anna Regan, WL, USC
Stella Shea, WL, Harvard
Contributor: Maisy Clevenger, #6, Maryland
Gabrielle Koury, #9, Florida
Eva Ingrilli, #17, North Carolina
Caitlin Barrett, #18, Duke
Kate Timarky, #19, Notre Dame
GraceAnn Leonard, #23, North Carolina
Ava Arceri, #24, Stanford
Jasmine Stanton, #26, Clemson
Samantha Hughes, #27, Florida
Isa Torres, #28, Virginia Tech
Ellie Burdick, #29, Dartmouth
Alexandra Schneider, #33, Virginia
Madison Alaimo, #39, Virginia
Reese Robinson, #40, Rutgers
Haydin Eisfeld, #47, Stony Brook
Blair Byrne, #49, Clemson
Madison Smith, #50, Northwestern
Allyx Berry, WL, Jacksonville
Joely Caramelli, WL, Syracuse
Ava Connaughton, WL, UMass
Noel Cumberland, WL, Northwestern
Jenna DiNardo, WL, Virginia
Molly Driscoll, WL, Boston College
Addi Foster, WL, Virginia
Karina Herrera, WL, Yale
Taylor Hoss, WL, Johns Hopkins
Ellie Johnson, WL, Stanford
Kaley Kakac, WL, Johns Hopkins
Paige Kelly, WL, North Carolina
Ashley Kiernan, WL, Yale
Lauren LaPointe, WL, Maryland
Mary Kate Lescault, WL, Johns Hopkins
Mackayla Macleod, WL, Clemson
Mikaela Mooney, WL, UAlbany
Meg Morrisroe, WL, Princeton
Meghan O’Hare, WL, Notre Dame
Kyra Obert, WL, Denver
Camryn Pfundstein, WL, Clemson
Colette Quinn, WL, Princeton
Olivia Ripple, WL, Denver
Avery Roberts, WL, North Carolina
Payton Tini, WL, Rutgers
Madison Weybrecht, WL, James Madison
Ellie White, WL, Duke
Reese Woodworth, WL, Duke
Some takeaways:
-Like the 2022 class, no players were AAs as freshman. Of the 3 years I've done this, Emma LoPinto is the only freshman top 100 player so far to be an AA. Just shows how hard it is to dominate as a freshman.
-The top 100 had at least 19 players reach starter designation, slightly behind 2022 (20) and ahead of 2021 (13). Only 2 players were all-conference, which is behind both previous top 100s.
-However, 64 players reached contributor status, which is well ahead of the previous two top 100s after their freshman season. Combine that with the lack of all-conference players, and maybe it's a sign that players were standing out but weren't emerging as stars due to all the COVID years.
-Impressed with what Virginia and Yale have done so far. Would also keep an eye on Clemson and North Carolina's classes,
-6 of the top 11 recruits didn't really make an impact as freshmen. Not sure if it means much, but is something to keep an eye on.
Thanks to everyone for following along. I try to do this to provide some insight and show that even if the specific numerical rankings aren't always right, ILWomen generally does a decent job ranking players. I'm sure a lot on here will still complain about how recruiting rankings don't matter, but hopefully this sparked some conversation once again.

Impressive work. Also agree that the “extra” Covid upperclass players crowded out some high end achievement. I would agree that a good amount of those 64 will be moving up the next two seasons. Learning from four years above them could make this a strong class by senior year.

Great analysis. A few small nitpicks -- a few of your contributors who O-middies who came in whenever the draw was won so they were starters for practical intent.

What's also interesting is there were some impact freshman who didn't make this list -- is it big school bias of were these freshman really surprises?

Yeah I figured that would probably be the case. I know being a starter doesn't always mean much in lacrosse but I had to draw the line somewhere. Plus I can't watch every game. As far as the highly-ranked freshmen who didn't play, it's too early to tell. By the end of their sophomore year is usually when you can tell who was a hit and who was overrated.

[lax410]

Agree on everything except one point. What's wrong with Clemson's academic reputation? It's a #43 public school in the nation, ahead of schools like USF, Rutgers, Oregon, Colorado, George Mason, both Arizona schools, JMU, etc. Not to mention, I've heard their Career Center is always rated the best in the nation almost every year.

Believe this is false based on the 2024 US News rankings. For starters, Rutgers is the 15th ranked public university in the country with Florida and UMd also in the top 20. Clemson is 43 on the list. One can always argue with these rankings as Penn State ranked at 28 with the strength of the alumni network seems a bit crazy.

Rutgers Camden was below Clemson. Everything else was correct.

Think it all depends on what list you are looking at and priorities. Assuming the girls want a big school, bigtime football, and a high employment and salary after college then the list is different than basic academics. Maryland and Virginia (although arguable football), USC, Notre Dame, and Michigan are in the top of that list(top120). Ohio state, Florida, Clemson, UNC, and Penn state(top 240) are the next level down. And Oregon, UNC, then Florida state are next after a significantly Drop. (Top 360).

As the father of a daughter who recently played big ten lacrosse at a football school, I can tell you big time football shouldn't be a reason to attend. Over 5 years, my daughter attended only 9 games (and 5 of them were with recruits). With Fall ball, prospect days, other lax committments most girls will miss more than half of their school's home games. (This may be different if you are a school who plays primarily night games.)

I have heard the same thing from players and have been sharing with recruits. Tough thing to count on and base your school decision on given all the fall lax responsibilities.

[Quill]

Ia Mia Mascone in the Tewaaraton convo now that she's at BC? What rank did she have coming in?

[Quill]

Are only the top 50 2024s ranked. Will there be a list of 100?

[laxfan9999]

IL for some reason hasn't done much with the 2024s as evidenced by only 50 girls given stars and a sub-par All-American game. I think there were 8 and 9 from two of the club teams. The 2025 rankings added more 3 and 4 star girls but nothing with 2024.

[CnyLax]

They usually do a top 100 but you are correct for whatever reason they have seemed to do less with the 24's and have already moved on?

[spidey44]

I think the 2023 top 100 was posted around November last year.

[laxfan9999]

IL posted a top 100 freshman in fall for 2023s but they had top 100 2023 rankings during recruiting cycle.

[spidey44]

Austin Peay with their first 2025 recruit. Still seeing FSU with zero (this could be wrong, but figure there'd be some fanfare with their first recruit). Definitely taking their time.

[VAMomGlax2019]

Austin Peay with their first 2025 recruit. Still seeing FSU with zero (this could be wrong, but figure there'd be some fanfare with their first recruit). Definitely taking their time.

Would not be surprised to see FSUs order of announcements be: 1) 2026 commits in September and October; 2) 2025 flips around signing day in November; and 3) transfer portal players in December.

2025s flipping probably will not make this public, either by choice or the school asking them not to announce their decision until closer to signing day.