Tweak the College Rules

[Matnum PI]

Don't disagree with any of this but it is pure offseason bloviating. They are never going to "deescalate" the stick technology. This is like pining for wood or aluminum tennis rackets. Absolutely the move to graphite and ceramic changed tennis but it made it easier for lesser players to play well. That is what manufacturers care about. Same with golf tech, the new balls and stick have rendered obsolete many historic courses. However, they make it easier for hackers to fly it 300 yards, thus increasing the popularity of the game. Equipment rules aren't driven by the performance of the best players. They don't make money selling lax sticks to Pat Spencer, they make it by selling them to 10s of thousands of lesser players. If tricking out the sticks makes it easier for those others to imitate great players and not get frustrated dropping the ball, then there you go. From the manufacturers perspective, as for the D, they got titanium shafts and they will have to pocket that and be happy. The only instance I can think of in the history of sports where some new innovation that made the game easier was subsequently banned because it was distorting the game was the crazy full body swim suits they had in the Olympics 10 or 12 years ago. You are going to have to pry offsets out of their cold, dead hands.

Not coincidental that the two sports you're citing are golf and tennis. Two country club sports. pcow, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment and... It behooves lacrosse not to become a country club sport. It's moved in the direction of hockey when I wish it'd move in the direction of soccer and basketball.

[palaxoff]

I gotta disagree on this point. I made the transition from wood all the way to today's current technology. The reason you are seeing long sticks do more is (1) the heads and (2) training. Defenders are simply putting more time into their stick skills because the the new heads it is worth it - it has NOTHING to do with the shaft,

Light as a feather - so what??

I think Sir Issac Newton would disagree. When you reduced the weight of the stick by over 50% the amount of force needed to swing a stick and change direction dropped dramatically allowing faster and more checks. I agree with you assessments on heads and training altogether with the lighter stick it is probably another reason why they gave the offense more advantages.

[pcowlax]

Don't disagree with any of this but it is pure offseason bloviating. They are never going to "deescalate" the stick technology. This is like pining for wood or aluminum tennis rackets. Absolutely the move to graphite and ceramic changed tennis but it made it easier for lesser players to play well. That is what manufacturers care about. Same with golf tech, the new balls and stick have rendered obsolete many historic courses. However, they make it easier for hackers to fly it 300 yards, thus increasing the popularity of the game. Equipment rules aren't driven by the performance of the best players. They don't make money selling lax sticks to Pat Spencer, they make it by selling them to 10s of thousands of lesser players. If tricking out the sticks makes it easier for those others to imitate great players and not get frustrated dropping the ball, then there you go. From the manufacturers perspective, as for the D, they got titanium shafts and they will have to pocket that and be happy. The only instance I can think of in the history of sports where some new innovation that made the game easier was subsequently banned because it was distorting the game was the crazy full body swim suits they had in the Olympics 10 or 12 years ago. You are going to have to pry offsets out of their cold, dead hands.

Not coincidental that the two sports you're citing are golf and tennis. Two country club sports. pcow, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment and... It behooves lacrosse not to become a country club sport. It's moved in the direction of hockey when I wish it'd move in the direction of soccer and basketball.

No desire for lax to be a country club sport, just cited golf and tennis because those are the only two sports remotely similar to lax in terms of being able to change how the game is played based on changes in technology. There is no way to change the games of soccer or basketball based on tech changes, only through massive rules changes (raising the rim, making the goal bigger). I don’t like watching guys pinch and pop and run with a ball upside down in their crosse anymore than the next guy but I lean towards hooligan in terms of mostly leaving it alone. The strum and drang surrounding face offs has really exploded around the dominance of Baptiste and Ierlan. There are many other great FOGOs but no one approaches there percentages. If one ludicrous goalie came along with an 80% save percentage and led his otherwise mediocre team to a title, would there be cries to shrink goalie stick heads? Let Ierlan graduate and I suspect we go back to seeing dominant FOGOs win 60% rather than 80% and calls to eliminate face offs or use the women’s style to die away.

[HowieT3]

There are folks far more knowledgeable about FOs than I am who say the easiest way to stop the domination by folks like Ierlan and Baptiste is to ban the moto grip. They'll probably still win more FOs than most everyone else, but their pct won't be as astronomical as it is now.

[Matnum PI]

pcow: I'm with you. No interest in making it a CC sport and... I'm just saying that it's not a coincidence that the wealthiest people are the best at the sports where you can "buy talent". Golf, Tennis. More exaggerated is Polo. And... Lacrosse. Sticks are expensive. The best sticks... Even more. I played as a boy. Could I do the same today? I don't know. I could but... It's expensive. While with soccer, I buy a pair of cleats and.. I'm done. Same for basketball, wrestling, etc. During the days of Sams and Barneys, it was no more of a money sport than football. i.e. The school gave you the expensive equipment. But today... Very different.

I'm not suggesting a change. I'm just saying that the sport is what it is today and, today, equipment, as well as camps, travel teams, and numerous other money drains, play no small role in a player's success. I'm not suggesting a change but... I'd vote yes if someone put it on a ballot.

[wgdsr]

there is so much equipment out there nowadays, you can get it for a song. or youth clubs/hs teams will hand it to you if you need. the "very best equipment" is a new design on last year's model. and the year before that.

all the camps, invitationals, club teams, training, must-go events -- that's another matter. i would agree that getting in front of that subset of coaches that feed at the trough of the country clubbers can cost extra dough -- yeah. but not sure many other sports are all that different nowadays. showcases, aau and 7 on 7s up and down the coast and across the land -- coaches do not recruit on high school courts and fields very many places or in many sports.

[laxpert]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

[palaxoff]

I'm not suggesting a change. I'm just saying that the sport is what it is today and, today, equipment, as well as camps, travel teams, and numerous other money drains, play no small role in a player's success. I'm not suggesting a change but... I'd vote yes if someone put it on a ballot

all the camps, invitationals, club teams, training, must-go events -- that's another matter. i would agree that getting in front of that subset of coaches that feed at the trough of the country clubbers can cost extra dough -- yeah. but not sure many other sports are all that different nowadays. showcases, aau and 7 on 7s up and down the coast and across the land -- coaches do not recruit on high school courts and fields very many places or in many sports.

The whole youth sport and chasing the imaginary scholarship has dumped untold billions into the economy and peoples pockets. The high cost is not exclusive to lacrosse. I have a daughter who player D1 Volleyball, while equipment isn't expensive, only played 1 tournament in the state flew everywhere else while my son who play D 1 lax only flew to one tournament in Florida . My Brother in Law made it to Pro level in ice hockey, he is staggered by the amount his parents must have paid now that his son is starting to play.

Unfortunately, this is the present business model parents are willing to make the investment and businesses are more then willing to take the money

[ABV 8.3%]

As far as I know, football has no club team/tournament infrastructure, yet the recruiting profits along. Lacrosse College coaches and players watch film? For what purpose? Clearly, the ONLY way to judge talent is watching Johnny Range Rover light it up against thank you for the new boat, fifth 2021 team (as in FIVE different teams ) Unlike recruiting for football via watching film, lacrosse does not follow this path. Although, why I do not know. Because, college coaches DO value film, just NOT when it comes to recruiting talent.

This IS what is going on, is it not?

I guess hanging on the sidelines IS more productive in New Castle, Bidenware or some old cow field in Humid County, Maryland instead of watching game film of Chaminade vs St. A's or Dover-Sherborn vs Grafton.

[HooDat]

As far as I know, football has no club team/tournament infrastructure, yet the recruiting profits along. Lacrosse College coaches and players watch film? For what purpose? Clearly, the ONLY way to judge talent is watching Johnny Range Rover light it up against thank you for the new boat, fifth 2021 team (as in FIVE different teams ) Unlike recruiting for football via watching film, lacrosse does not follow this path. Although, why I do not know. Because, college coaches DO value film, just NOT when it comes to recruiting talent.

This IS what is going on, is it not?

I guess hanging on the sidelines IS more productive in New Castle, Bidenware or some old cow field in Humid County, Maryland instead of watching game film of Chaminade vs St. A's or Dover-Sherborn vs Grafton.

because the new pay-to-play club scene makes money for their assistant coaches and buddies.

[Matnum PI]

Question: What would happen if, for example, Sun's Buttermore never played club ball. Just HS ball during the Spring? Then he gets into SU by his own merit and tells desko he'd like to try-out for the team. What would happen?

[wgdsr]

is this something specific to buttermore?
syracuse hosts walk ons and gives a good player an extended chance.
some teams don't, and some can't.
---he'd get less athletic aid at least in year 1 if he was offered any. (though he'd save on all related club fees)
---he wouldn't get some of the preferences athletes get like housing in year 1
---his and his family's summers would be free
---he wouldn't get the uber competition from club games, or the high end club coaching
---his club wouldn't get to list landing him at syracuse on their website

i think that's most of it

[Matnum PI]

Not specific to Buttermore. Buttermore just seemed like a good example. I think Kelly or Solomon at UNC are bad examples.

[Matnum PI]

I ask because... I question whether all the "extras" are really necessary. Or are parents and players being prodded with fear to buy more... and more... and more...

[xxxxxxx]

Question: What would happen if, for example, Sun's Buttermore never played club ball. Just HS ball during the Spring? Then he gets into SU by his own merit and tells desko he'd like to try-out for the team. What would happen?

Depends on the school and the timing, for example when a new coach arrives they often welcome walk ons. As an example Ben DeLuca had over ten walk ons try out when he arrived at Delaware and one made the team. Some schools will not entertain them and if they do, you need to be better than the guys he recruited. It's difficult but possible. I don't know what Desko would do but he does have a big roster and may be more open to it than other schools with roster restrictions. Not sure what this has to do with Buttermore he played on a great club team and was a star in football and lacrosse at a great high school coached by Frank Urso. If he din't play club and showed up, my guess is Desko would call his high school coach and listen to what he had to say, and based on that conversation he would get a shot.

[HooDat]

Question: What would happen if, for example, Sun's Buttermore never played club ball. Just HS ball during the Spring? Then he gets into SU by his own merit and tells desko he'd like to try-out for the team. What would happen?

The math on scholarships vs club and travel costs does not add up, unless of course the kid is given a "scholarship" at the club, but even then there is travel. By my math it looks like this:

Club Fees: $3,000 per summer, plus an other $2,000 in the fall for a total of $5,000 per year
Travel (7 events a year you fly to at $500 each, plus 6 events a year you drive to at $200) = $4,700 per year.
Hotels: (13 x $100) = $1,300
Miscellaneous travel expenses and extra wear and tear on equipment - call it another $1,000 per year.

If you want to make the good travel teams when you are a freshman and sophomore (the new key recruiting window) you have to get involved in a program by 7th grade - or be a total stud in which case you will be found anyway - so you will be paying up for 5 years.

5 x $12,000 = $60,000.

Depending on where you go to school the value of the scholarship varies, but let's use Cuse where tuition is $52,000 per year.

Here are my assumptions:
50 man roster, but somewhere around 10 are paying full boat, so
40 kids with some scholarship
12.6/40 = 0.32 scholarships per player
$52,000 * 0.32 = $16,380
$16,380 x 4 = $65,520
$65,520-$60,000 = $5,520 potential benefit - IF you get the nod and an "average" scholarship.

Now a few comments:
- the scholarships are not divided up evenly. A handful of kids get a LOT of help and many get what amounts to book money. The kids who get more tend to be studs who also have financial need. When that is the case, at many schools, you have a better chance of getting more help via need based aid than athletic scholarships.
- the kids who are good enough to get the disproportionate amount of athletic scholarships are good enough to get it whether they play club or not.

In summary, there is a lot to be said for spending more time with the books. Getting accepted into the school of your choice and getting yourself into a position to be an invited walk-on.

The best rationale for getting on the recruiting treadmill that I have heard is that the parents can afford it, and that $60k is being spent to help little johnny get into a better school than he otherwise would. $60k pays for a LOT of tutoring..... I am just saying....

[River Donkey]

Question: What would happen if, for example, Sun's Buttermore never played club ball. Just HS ball during the Spring? Then he gets into SU by his own merit and tells desko he'd like to try-out for the team. What would happen?

The math on scholarships vs club and travel costs does not add up, unless of course the kid is given a "scholarship" at the club, but even then there is travel. By my math it looks like this:

Club Fees: $3,000 per summer, plus an other $2,000 in the fall for a total of $5,000 per year
Travel (7 events a year you fly to at $500 each, plus 6 events a year you drive to at $200) = $4,700 per year.
Hotels: (13 x $100) = $1,300
Miscellaneous travel expenses and extra wear and tear on equipment - call it another $1,000 per year.

If you want to make the good travel teams when you are a freshman and sophomore (the new key recruiting window) you have to get involved in a program by 7th grade - or be a total stud in which case you will be found anyway - so you will be paying up for 5 years.

5 x $12,000 = $60,000.

Depending on where you go to school the value of the scholarship varies, but let's use Cuse where tuition is $52,000 per year.

Here are my assumptions:
50 man roster, but somewhere around 10 are paying full boat, so
40 kids with some scholarship
12.6/40 = 0.32 scholarships per player
$52,000 * 0.32 = $16,380
$16,380 x 4 = $65,520
$65,520-$60,000 = $5,520 potential benefit - IF you get the nod and an "average" scholarship.

Now a few comments:
- the scholarships are not divided up evenly. A handful of kids get a LOT of help and many get what amounts to book money. The kids who get more tend to be studs who also have financial need. When that is the case, at many schools, you have a better chance of getting more help via need based aid than athletic scholarships.
- the kids who are good enough to get the disproportionate amount of athletic scholarships are good enough to get it whether they play club or not.

In summary, there is a lot to be said for spending more time with the books. Getting accepted into the school of your choice and getting yourself into a position to be an invited walk-on.

The best rationale for getting on the recruiting treadmill that I have heard is that the parents can afford it, and that $60k is being spent to help little johnny get into a better school than he otherwise would. $60k pays for a LOT of tutoring..... I am just saying....

This post should be made public for social media. I bet a lot of the parents have no idea of how the numbers break down. Thank you for taking the time to post this.

[Matnum PI]

Some schools will not entertain them and if they do, you need to be better than the guys he recruited.

That only makes sense, no?

...my guess is Desko would call his high school coach and listen to what he had to say, and based on that conversation he would get a shot.

This strikes me as extremely fair.

I'm of the belief, and every time I discuss this, my belief gets stronger, that this Club Lacrosse Carousel is self-imposed by the same parents that are complaining about it. Though, I could be wrong.

$60k pays for a LOT of tutoring..... I am just saying....

I don't think, in the vast majority of cases, the Carousel is being ridden, even with the enormous price tag, to necessarily get into a better school. It's "to be recruited". Not to get a scholarship. But "to be recruited". e.g. "My son is being recruited by Syracuse." "I was at a tourney this weekend. Lots of travel, lots of $, but... 12 D1 and 32 D3 coaches were there... My son is being recruited by D1 and D3 coaches." People, especially wealthy people, are willing to pay a lot of $ for this.

[thatsmell]

Tried to eliminate the moto grip in 2012 but the NCAA backtracked on its decision


“Many of our coaches voiced concern that removing this grip would basically eliminate some student-athletes from the game,” Hind, athletic director at Hamilton, said in a press release. “Ultimately, we are trying to have fair faceoffs, and with the point of emphasis, we think that will help. This is an example of the rules process working, and we appreciate the membership feedback.”

Penalites were released when the defense advanced the ball to the offensive zone circa mid 1990's the rule was rescinded after a few years.
Can't remember exactly why, but changing back to the current rule made sense at the time.

I've said it before. The issue is the grip.

I remember that quote from the release all those years ago.

And it's complete BS.

As someone that has faced off and taught both styles of faceoff for 20+ years I can attest. If a Fogo can't learn the other grip, he's not a Fogo.

IMO, that comment was part and parcel of the recruiting bs that was going on- Most likely a coach or two that recruited a top moto-grip kid pushed back for fear of losing a known asset. The kids habe and will adapt and learn a new style and the pecking order of recruits might change a bit, but Kids wont be pushed from the game. That's ridiculous.

Still concern? Just phase in the change. Let the college kids keep moto for 2 more years and require the rec and h./s to move to O/U now. Problem solved.

[hens62]

As far as I know, football has no club team/tournament infrastructure, yet the recruiting profits along.

There is a huge football camp infrastructure where measurables are recorded and drills are run - playing 11v11 in the summer is just not realistic, but this most definitely exists. 7v7 is huge now too. More info:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/200 ... ced#slide1

Not included in this discussion is the kids motivation to play lacrosse at the highest level in the summer.. as someone who went through this process about a decade ago, my friends & I would have HATED sitting at the beach while kids around the country are competing/getting better. Look at things like Committed Combine - there is ZERO reason to attend other than these guys want to compete and have the means to do so. My family probably broke even, but I and most of my teammates attended schools we would not have gotten into otherwise and have better careers because of it. Also had a BLAST doing it