I'd agree across the class, but the pickup of Bogan today was huge. Probably best player in the class, definitely the best athlete, and will get on the field.laxfan9999 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:26 pm Clemson class is surprisingly underwhelming. It is closer to Louisville and Pitt than it is to UnC and Syracuse in the ACC.
Recruiting
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:35 pm
Re: Recruiting
Re: Recruiting
No use me trying to rank those top 12 from only seeing their recruiting videos. I will predict Findora could easily get the most early recognition and have a great college career. I think her video is top 2, but her going to Virginia should get her on the field early. Going to a great school where she should play all 4 years is a great decision. Nothing wrong with going to the teams stacked with 5 stars, but sitting the bench is not fun at all. Both sisters can continue to excel together against top competition.
-
- Posts: 110
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2023 2:14 pm
- Location: Longbranch, NJ
Re: Recruiting
If we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
-
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2024 8:35 pm
Re: Recruiting
In any class, whether it is football, basketball or lax, 50% of the top 10 never make an impact.LiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
Re: Recruiting
I know Pitt and Louisville are ACC with great schedule, but I am sure many good players pass on those schools.WashedUpLaxDad wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:35 pmI'd agree across the class, but the pickup of Bogan today was huge. Probably best player in the class, definitely the best athlete, and will get on the field.laxfan9999 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 9:26 pm Clemson class is surprisingly underwhelming. It is closer to Louisville and Pitt than it is to UnC and Syracuse in the ACC.
Louisville is ranked like 44th in NCAA rankings and Pitt 75th. Would you want a Penn State, UMass, or Richmond over a Pitt or Louisville?
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: Recruiting
WashedUpLaxDad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:10 amIn any class, whether it is football, basketball or lax, 50% of the top 10 never make an impact.LiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
Do you need me to bring up the top 10 from Inside Lacrosse for the last 15 years and see if your statement holds?
Re: Recruiting
Not doubting you, but would love to see the statsKleizaster wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:42 amWashedUpLaxDad wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:10 amIn any class, whether it is football, basketball or lax, 50% of the top 10 never make an impact.LiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
Do you need me to bring up the top 10 from Inside Lacrosse for the last 15 years and see if your statement holds?
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: Recruiting
Seems to me like you live under the impression that these rankings need to be 100% accurate. That's not possible. in anything where there is some form of bias. But it is more often right than it is wrong. No one is saying these rankings are 100% accurate. That's what you need to understand.LiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
You're telling me if ECU had a choice between Cayden Reese and whoever was #1 on their list, they would turn down Reese?
if your answer is no, that's why recruiting and stars matter and why you're on a recruiting forum
Re: Recruiting
Yep. And as I said earlier, if a player such as Mallory Hasselbeck chose ECU and dominated, people posting here would be saying she was a star and could play anywhere instead of labeling her a bust. She chose BC with seven thousand other top players. It doesn’t mean she can’t play.Kleizaster wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 9:49 amSeems to me like you live under the impression that these rankings need to be 100% accurate. That's not possible. in anything where there is some form of bias. But it is more often right than it is wrong. No one is saying these rankings are 100% accurate. That's what you need to understand.LiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
You're telling me if ECU had a choice between Cayden Reese and whoever was #1 on their list, they would turn down Reese?
if your answer is no, that's why recruiting and stars matter and why you're on a recruiting forum
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 12:31 pm
Re: Recruiting
[/quote]
I know Pitt and Louisville are ACC with great schedule, but I am sure many good players pass on those schools.
Louisville is ranked like 44th in NCAA rankings and Pitt 75th. Would you want a Penn State, UMass, or Richmond over a Pitt or Louisville?
[/quote]
Certainly have a better chance of making the ncaa tourney on those teams
I know Pitt and Louisville are ACC with great schedule, but I am sure many good players pass on those schools.
Louisville is ranked like 44th in NCAA rankings and Pitt 75th. Would you want a Penn State, UMass, or Richmond over a Pitt or Louisville?
[/quote]
Certainly have a better chance of making the ncaa tourney on those teams
Re: Recruiting
I have to 100% agree. Inside Lacrosse didnt do a great job this year. Many were left off including recruits that are heading to Florida UnC Clemson Northwester etc. these great athletes were not ranked and they were certainly at the top of the 2026 class. Defenders seemed to get slighted the most. speaking to several top ranked school coaches during the recruiting process, they told us they hold zero weight on these rankings... they base their recuriting what they SEE not what they read about... we were told its mostly for the parentsLiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: Recruiting
How would you know when they havnt played in college? IL has a history and track record of their rankings. Why is your word and evaluations better than theres on this particular class?Codylax14 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 10:58 amI have to 100% agree. Inside Lacrosse didnt do a great job this year. Many were left off including recruits that are heading to Florida UnC Clemson Northwester etc. these great athletes were not ranked and they were certainly at the top of the 2026 class. Defenders seemed to get slighted the most. speaking to several top ranked school coaches during the recruiting process, they told us they hold zero weight on these rankings... they base their recuriting what they SEE not what they read about... we were told its mostly for the parentsLiveLaxLove wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2024 10:56 pmIf we're going off of Inside Lacrosse rankings, this is one of the most screwed up class rankings I have ever seen. I'd bet that 50% of the top ten we'll never hear about until 6 years from now, if ever.
Meanwhile, a ton of really good athletes are not even mentioned.
There are girls that got full offers from UNC, Cuse, Clemson, Florida, Northwestern, etc that are completely off the list.
I'm going to bet when they do a re-ranking after their sophomore year in college, the top ten won't resemble anything like recruiting rankings.
Then again, in 4 years, I'm going to bet that certain schools in the top 15 will be long gone as well after this revenue sharing and 'two-tier' system kicks in.
-
- Posts: 668
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2020 9:54 pm
Re: Recruiting
Look, no one is saying these rankings are perfect. They are not. Players get overlooked and underrated, players get overrated. Happens. People are ranked in life and compared to their peers. Successful companies hire the best people. The best teams have the best players. UNC and BC are consistantly good and better than Lindenwood because they have better players. The better players you have, the higher the chance of success.
No one just closes their eyes and decides to randomely rank players. There's merit to it.
How can you argue rankings don't matter yet every year the best teams are the teams who have more players who were highly touted coming out of high school. what am i missing here. is this not common sense?
No one just closes their eyes and decides to randomely rank players. There's merit to it.
How can you argue rankings don't matter yet every year the best teams are the teams who have more players who were highly touted coming out of high school. what am i missing here. is this not common sense?
-
- Posts: 492
- Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2023 5:34 pm
Re: Recruiting
You are directionally right of course….and also specifically wrong sometimes given small N of schools and even kids seen and rated versus all kids playing in a particular class.Kleizaster wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 11:36 am Look, no one is saying these rankings are perfect. They are not. Players get overlooked and underrated, players get overrated. Happens. People are ranked in life and compared to their peers. Successful companies hire the best people. The best teams have the best players. UNC and BC are consistantly good and better than Lindenwood because they have better players. The better players you have, the higher the chance of success.
No one just closes their eyes and decides to randomely rank players. There's merit to it.
How can you argue rankings don't matter yet every year the best teams are the teams who have more players who were highly touted coming out of high school. what am i missing here. is this not common sense?
And the exception that proves the rule is northwestern.
And we are quibbling about shades of grey.
Any school not named unc or bc or Florida or uva or Syracuse or northwestern or Maryland or maybe Stanford would SWAP 26 commit classes with any of the above. Maybe ND. That’s it. End of story.
Re: Recruiting
I am certainly not saying that the girls ranked are not great players and they are ....no doubt... and those 5 star players are great for sure!! Im just saying they missed a lot of players this year...and that the coaches aren't looking at Inside Lacrosse for their recruits... they already know who they want have seen them play and for certain a lot of them are on that list. But a lot of them are not and they chose those unstarre girls based not on Inside lacrosse rankings but for what they see when they are recruiting does that make sense...
Re: Recruiting
But they miss players every year. This year is no different then when they started rankings. So the talk about rankings are moot. This seemed like it started because some poster’s kid was not on the list. She ended up in a great place and is happy. That happens to a ton of really good lax players.Codylax14 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 11:52 am I am certainly not saying that the girls ranked are not great players and they are ....no doubt... and those 5 star players are great for sure!! Im just saying they missed a lot of players this year...and that the coaches aren't looking at Inside Lacrosse for their recruits... they already know who they want have seen them play and for certain a lot of them are on that list. But a lot of them are not and they chose those unstarre girls based not on Inside lacrosse rankings but for what they see when they are recruiting does that make sense...
Last edited by Relax77 on Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 137
- Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:18 pm
Re: Recruiting
I am a little surprised that Coastal Carolina only has 2 commits so far. With making the tourney last year and building the new indoor practice facility, I would have thought Coastal would have been a very enticing draw. One step forward, one step back I guess.
Re: Recruiting
Thats great! Good for her! Hopefully that is how it works for others as well!Relax77 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:08 pmBut they miss players every year. This yea is no different than when they started rankings. So the talk about rankings are moot. This seemed like it started because some poster’s kid was not on the list. She ended up in a great place and is happy. That happens to a ton of really good lax players.Codylax14 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 11:52 am I am certainly not saying that the girls ranked are not great players and they are ....no doubt... and those 5 star players are great for sure!! Im just saying they missed a lot of players this year...and that the coaches aren't looking at Inside Lacrosse for their recruits... they already know who they want have seen them play and for certain a lot of them are on that list. But a lot of them are not and they chose those unstarre girls based not on Inside lacrosse rankings but for what they see when they are recruiting does that make sense...
Re: Recruiting
There’s quite a few mid and upper mid teams that are low. Delaware, Drexel and Jacksonville all have zero.LaxGnome22 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:40 pm I am a little surprised that Coastal Carolina only has 2 commits so far. With making the tourney last year and building the new indoor practice facility, I would have thought Coastal would have been a very enticing draw. One step forward, one step back I guess.
-
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2024 12:31 pm
Re: Recruiting
Just announced a 3rd todayLaxGnome22 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 20, 2024 12:40 pm I am a little surprised that Coastal Carolina only has 2 commits so far. With making the tourney last year and building the new indoor practice facility, I would have thought Coastal would have been a very enticing draw. One step forward, one step back I guess.