What's up with all the RECLASS

[Surfs_Up]

I am seeing in Lacrosse, a tremendous amount of rising juniors who suddenly re-class down. If you aren't projecting where you want to be, why do you think 1 year extra will be the great difference maker?

Who the heck wants to do 5 years of high school? Isn't there more important things to progress onto in life?

If they are young, and need some growth, can't you just redshirt? Does college lacrosse not do red shirts?

I find the re-class thing kind of weak.

What say you?

[smoova]

In my area, the operative phrase is "commit to a PG year." In other words, the parents of a 2021 (rising junior) who either (i) did not receive interest from the "right" schools or (ii) was injured for some portion of the "recruiting season" promise that their son will complete a year at a boarding school after graduating from high school, but before matriculating to college. Club directors, thirsty for an additional year of revenue, are happy allow a player who will graduate in 2021 to play on a 2022 team.

As you note, the hope is that, by competing against significantly younger players, the hold backs will fool college coaches ... which may not be so far-fetched given how DI coaches needed formal legislation to save themselves from the destructive insanity of early recruiting.

One interesting note: the majority of recruiting tournaments set divisions based on "the oldest high school grade on the team" rather than "earliest year a player on the team will matriculate to college." Not that rules matter much to folks slavering to drop $70,000 so they can watch their progeny trample much younger players.

It is a shameful, yet predictable, practice in a sport run by wealthy parents.

[Farfromgeneva]

This has been going on in lacrosse for 15-20yrs, nothing new. I could see an acceleration of this activity with the change in recruiting rules pushing back things to Jr year from FR/Soph year as it had gotten thanks to dom starsia, petro, breschi and a few others to combat the rise of the ivies, specifically Tierney era Princeton.

[MA Lax Fan]

Yes, the more I learn about it the more it appears to be weak.

I have seen some of the biggest strongest kids, who are socially and academically age appropriate still reclass.

They already dominate on the lacrosse, soccer, football fields but these private school coaches somehow convince them to stay back so they can compete against younger kids. It is happening not occasionally but all the time.

It really screws up the recruiting process for the traditional HS kid.

As long as the economy is rolling I don’t see it stopping anytime soon.

I would love it if these club programs went to a hockey model and broke the kids out by birth year.

Be warned, the private school parents flip out over this topic and demand that we accept 13th and 14th grade HS students and will justify it til the cows come home.

[Laxxal22]

It's going/gone down the path of hockey, where between prep school and juniors the 20 year old freshmen isn't rare. Not surprisingly it seems like a lot a lot of lacrosse repeat sudents are to teams & leagues with strong hockey traditions.

Qui bono?

Well, a lot of people. Parents with means looking to get an edge for their kids in college and beyond. College coaches wanting/getting more developed players arriving as freshmen. Clubs making more money and having stronger teams. Private schools getting an extra year of tuition and fielding all-star teams which stokes alumni giving.

Boys being young/physical late bloomers for their class is often the case for a reclass, but and for standout players it can be legitimately about academics. But then there are certainly those following this path that believe an extra year can turn a Middlebury offer into Harvard, or Villanova into Duke. It's certainly not fair in the cosmic sense, but as MA Lax Fan said as long as the economy keeps rolling so will this.

[No Tilt]

the game is growing. more opportunity to play at various locations. if you have the means, why not?

someone touched on late bloomers. this is a huge percentage of the reason. a lot of wonderful athletes are finding lacrosse a little later in life and their bodies or their academics just are not ready for the ncaa level on the field or in the classroom. so many kids just think they are going to a safety school when they start high school so they let their grades slip. then they realize they have some colleges interested in them and the "ah ha" moments hits them (and more importantly, their parents) realizing they are behind the 8-ball in the process. the PG year is a huge help.

[Surfs_Up]

Nobody has said anything about red shirt . Does LAX not do red shirt?

Wouldn’t you rather get a year of college under your b belt vs 5th year of HS?

[3rdPersonPlural]

Nobody has said anything about red shirt . Does LAX not do red shirt?

Wouldn’t you rather get a year of college under your b belt vs 5th year of HS?

Uh...no. I'm sure that kids want to get to a 9 month co-ed sleep-away camp where you lax a lot and (oh yeah) there's school, too.

Problem is, this is a recipe for a flame-out.

Another year of HS allows kids to mature a little more and maybe take some AP classes which scoots them through a lot of college 101 classes.

[No Tilt]

I imagine that life at a big time P5 D1 as a redshirt is a MUCH better experience than at a G5 or lower level size/type of college, in terms of classes, social life, football season, girls, and so on.

[Farfromgeneva]

Have you seen the girls at Georgia tech or Notre dame? I suspect they’re more “in demand” as a place like Jacksonville, Tampa, even High point.

[MA Lax Fan]

The re-classes I see, and I see a lot, are typically the biggest strongest kids who are socially and academically up to speed. They are not, in most cases, kids who need a year to mature in some area of life.

I have been a youth coach for a long time and often my best kids go off to a 3D clinic or camp and return telling me they are going private and are going to re-class. In my opinion, it is gaming the system by trying to compete against smaller weaker kids.

This is not to say that there are situations where reclassing wouldn’t make sense for a player who was injured, has learning issues or may me physically or socially delayed but the majority of the kids I see going the re-class route have life by the balls at a very young age and don’t need to repeat.

[Tactful Lax]

Both of my sons have graduated from D3 schools where they were both 3 year starters on the lacrosse team, with my youngest actually making All-American. They both graduated from public high schools at the age of 18, and from college at the age of 22. They both now go by "Dr."

The biggest single thing that I deduced from people whom we knew to re-class and go to a private school is that if a guy can't cut it as a 19 year old freshman, he also won't cut it as a 20 year old freshman. They can live their lives reflecting on their senior year when they were so dominant playing against 16-17 year olds and then getting a harsh dose of reality at the next level, both on the field and in the classroom.

I just simply see no benefit to the re-class. A very major lesson to be learned is that you take your situation and work as hard as you can to make the most of it, not just try to gain an unfair advantage and paying another year of tuition.

[RumorMill]

Both of my sons have graduated from D3 schools where they were both 3 year starters on the lacrosse team, with my youngest actually making All-American. They both graduated from public high schools at the age of 18, and from college at the age of 22. They both now go by "Dr."

The biggest single thing that I deduced from people whom we knew to re-class and go to a private school is that if a guy can't cut it as a 19 year old freshman, he also won't cut it as a 20 year old freshman. They can live their lives reflecting on their senior year when they were so dominant playing against 16-17 year olds and then getting a harsh dose of reality at the next level, both on the field and in the classroom.

I just simply see no benefit to the re-class. A very major lesson to be learned is that you take your situation and work as hard as you can to make the most of it, not just try to gain an unfair advantage and paying another year of tuition.

Congrats to you and your kids, definitely a great accomplishment... that you lessen by demeaning kids who choose to take a different path.

I don't necessarily support or discourage "re-classing", I put it strongly in a "different strokes for different folks" category. Personally I didn't reclass (but it wasn't that common "way back" in my day) and went on to have an extremely successful college athletic career (started as a freshman). My parents also started me in school later than most (turning 19 my freshman fall semester)... and i would say that alone significantly helped my maturity and ability to excel in college... and probably would have done even better reclassing, but then again who knows!

For those arguing that it's "unfair" and simply a means for these "re-class" kids to play against younger smaller competition, I don't think you're grasping this overall discussion. If we're talking about a "bunch" of "re-classed" kids, then who are they playing against? Other re-classed kids? Additionally where are they re-classing? Prep schools in New England most likely, correct? So even the "younger" players they are playing against are most likely some of the "best" lacrosse players for their age. My experience with some of the NE Prep rosters is, there aren't a whole lot of Freshman and Sophomores seeing significant time (unless they are re-classers )!

I agree we are seeing significantly more "re-classed" students in todays Prep School Lacrosse game. I don't see it as a bad thing, or necessarily a good thing... just a thing. Regarding the kids being "bigger" etc... I will never buy into that argument. Any parent who complains that their kid is playing against a bigger, older, kid, etc. shouldn't have their kid playing in that environment. Freshman playing against Sophomores, Juniors and Seniors will never change if you want your kids playing against the "best"... and if he's not ready for it then re-class him!

[Ddw1]

I generally agree, although there are some instances of which I am aware, when students reclassed, because the students turned 18 just after what would have been their high school graduation dates, were in good public schools, but needed an additional year to prove their academic capabilities in order to gain admission to D3 schools with rigid admissions’ requirements. In those cases, a reclass or PG year may have made some sense — as has been previously pointed out for for legitimate academic and emotional maturity growth. However, in two or three of the circumstances, the young men are about 6’3” and approximately 225 or 230 lbs. so that many people perceived them in the same light as some of the others posters have — just using the additional year to beat up on younger smaller opponents.

[RumorMill]

but needed an additional year to prove their academic capabilities in order to gain admission to D3 schools with rigid admissions’ requirements. In those cases, a reclass or PG year may have made some sense — as has been previously pointed out for for legitimate academic and emotional maturity growth. However, in two or three of the circumstances, the young men are about 6’3” and approximately 225 or 230 lbs. so that many people perceived them in the same light as some of the others posters have — just using the additional year to beat up on younger smaller opponents.

Definitely this as well! Agree. So many people jump to conclusions about these student/athletes. It's most likely the "big dominant" player who re-classes or PG's, as Ddw1 states, and is doing so because "X" school needs them to improve their academics in order to gain admission. They and/or their parents aren't re-classing them because they want to "beat up" on "lesser" competition, it's to give them the most opportunity to pursue the best college they can.

[viper]

but needed an additional year to prove their academic capabilities in order to gain admission to D3 schools with rigid admissions’ requirements. In those cases, a reclass or PG year may have made some sense — as has been previously pointed out for for legitimate academic and emotional maturity growth. However, in two or three of the circumstances, the young men are about 6’3” and approximately 225 or 230 lbs. so that many people perceived them in the same light as some of the others posters have — just using the additional year to beat up on younger smaller opponents.

Definitely this as well! Agree. So many people jump to conclusions about these student/athletes. It's most likely the "big dominant" player who re-classes or PG's, as Ddw1 states, and is doing so because "X" school needs them to improve their academics in order to gain admission. They and/or their parents aren't re-classing them because they want to "beat up" on "lesser" competition, it's to give them the most opportunity to pursue the best college's they can.

I can speak to this directly through a personal experience. At the time my son was a sophomore at an MIAA A school who was "on grade". I was sitting with a parent of a freshman at a winter lacrosse working for the team. That freshman was older than my sophomore son. His son was also already committed to a major D1 lacrosse program. When I spoke to him about the path he and his son chose he was quite frank. He said "my son is a good student, but not a great student and if he had or would just be applying to the school he was committed to, that application would have ended up in the "circular file" almost as quickly as it was received." For that parent it was about opportunity for his son, not just in lacrosse, but for his years beyond lacrosse and college. It was at that moment that I accepted the practice of reclassification. It was never an option for me and my kids (both were MIAA A lax players), but it might be for other parents trying to give their kids the best chances overall to succeed in life and not just lacrosse.

[Fanlax999]

The re-classes I see, and I see a lot, are typically the biggest strongest kids who are socially and academically up to speed. They are not, in most cases, kids who need a year to mature in some area of life.

I have been a youth coach for a long time and often my best kids go off to a 3D clinic or camp and return telling me they are going private and are going to re-class. In my opinion, it is gaming the system by trying to compete against smaller weaker kids.

This is not to say that there are situations where reclassing wouldn’t make sense for a player who was injured, has learning issues or may me physically or socially delayed but the majority of the kids I see going the re-class route have life by the balls at a very young age and don’t need to repeat.

3d recommends kids re-class. bunch of rich kids spending another year of parent's money chasing "the dream". lol. lacrosse is targeted for rich kids. don't let anyone tell you differently....If i could only list the names of players in my area alone who spent over $100K to get recruited but to only come back home to play MCLA or never play the sport again. But, hey, if you got money to throw away, there are a ton of travel team and tournament owners who will gladly have their hands out or in your pocket to take your money away lol.

[Fanlax999]

but needed an additional year to prove their academic capabilities in order to gain admission to D3 schools with rigid admissions’ requirements. In those cases, a reclass or PG year may have made some sense — as has been previously pointed out for for legitimate academic and emotional maturity growth. However, in two or three of the circumstances, the young men are about 6’3” and approximately 225 or 230 lbs. so that many people perceived them in the same light as some of the others posters have — just using the additional year to beat up on younger smaller opponents.

Definitely this as well! Agree. So many people jump to conclusions about these student/athletes. It's most likely the "big dominant" player who re-classes or PG's, as Ddw1 states, and is doing so because "X" school needs them to improve their academics in order to gain admission. They and/or their parents aren't re-classing them because they want to "beat up" on "lesser" competition, it's to give them the most opportunity to pursue the best college's they can.

I can speak to this directly through a personal experience. At the time my son was a sophomore at an MIAA A school who was "on grade". I was sitting with a parent of a freshman at a winter lacrosse working for the team. That freshman was older than my sophomore son. His son was also already committed to a major D1 lacrosse program. When I spoke to him about the path he and his son chose he was quite frank. He said "my son is a good student, but not a great student and if he had or would just be applying to the school he was committed to, that application would have ended up in the "circular file" almost as quickly as it was received." For that parent it was about opportunity for his son, not just in lacrosse, but for his years beyond lacrosse and college. It was at that moment that I accepted the practice of reclassification. It was never an option for me and my kids (both were MIAA A lax players), but it might be for other parents trying to give their kids the best chances overall to succeed in life and not just lacrosse.

I agree, not all PG kids are doing it for shady reasons, and some are doing it just to get into a better school that they normally could not get into. I get that, and honestly i would let my kid do it too if Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn, and other ivies came calling. But for my situation, I would have to borrow big somewhere for him to go to those schools, and go to a PG school. I wouldn't do it for some elite D3 school or lower level D1 school, which my son was offered to go and was asked to PG. I asked him where I was going to get the extras $40-$70 grand to pay the PG year. No answer. He finally came to his senses that it didn't make financial or college sense.

What cracks me up about PGers is they are listed as "top" players in their PG year (supposed to graduate in 17 but listed in 18 or 19 class). Of course they will be rater higher than classes BELOW them. LOL. But I see various sites and people touting about these players as if they out of this world talented, when in fact they are just average good players who are playing down 1 or 2 (sometimes 3) years. But anyway to game the system right since it is not illegal to do so.

[Fanlax999]

but needed an additional year to prove their academic capabilities in order to gain admission to D3 schools with rigid admissions’ requirements. In those cases, a reclass or PG year may have made some sense — as has been previously pointed out for for legitimate academic and emotional maturity growth. However, in two or three of the circumstances, the young men are about 6’3” and approximately 225 or 230 lbs. so that many people perceived them in the same light as some of the others posters have — just using the additional year to beat up on younger smaller opponents.

Definitely this as well! Agree. So many people jump to conclusions about these student/athletes. It's most likely the "big dominant" player who re-classes or PG's, as Ddw1 states, and is doing so because "X" school needs them to improve their academics in order to gain admission. They and/or their parents aren't re-classing them because they want to "beat up" on "lesser" competition, it's to give them the most opportunity to pursue the best college's they can.

I can speak to this directly through a personal experience. At the time my son was a sophomore at an MIAA A school who was "on grade". I was sitting with a parent of a freshman at a winter lacrosse working for the team. That freshman was older than my sophomore son. His son was also already committed to a major D1 lacrosse program. When I spoke to him about the path he and his son chose he was quite frank. He said "my son is a good student, but not a great student and if he had or would just be applying to the school he was committed to, that application would have ended up in the "circular file" almost as quickly as it was received." For that parent it was about opportunity for his son, not just in lacrosse, but for his years beyond lacrosse and college. It was at that moment that I accepted the practice of reclassification. It was never an option for me and my kids (both were MIAA A lax players), but it might be for other parents trying to give their kids the best chances overall to succeed in life and not just lacrosse.

I agree, not all PG kids are doing it for shady reasons, and some are doing it just to get into a better school that they normally could not get into. I get that, and honestly i would let my kid do it too if Harvard, Yale, Princeton, UPenn, and other ivies came calling. But for my situation, I would have to borrow big somewhere for him to go to those schools, and go to a PG school. I wouldn't do it for some elite D3 school or lower level D1 school, which my son was offered to go and was asked to PG. I asked him where I was going to get the extras $40-$70 grand to pay the PG year. No answer. He finally came to his senses that it didn't make financial or college sense.

What cracks me up about PGers is they are listed as "top" players in their PG year (supposed to graduate in 17 but listed in 18 or 19 class). Of course they will be rated higher than classes BELOW them. LOL. But I see various sites and people touting about these players as if they are out of this world talented, when in fact they are just average good players who are playing down 1 or 2 (sometimes 3) years. Anyway to game the system, right, since it is not illegal to do so.

Everyone involved with lacrosse wants players to PG because it makes them a ton of money, or gets them a older (hopefully better) player one year later, at really no cost to the school. It costs the family a ton of money but if they already have a ton of money, who cares, not them.

[kramerica.inc]

If people want to do it and spend money on it, why does anyone else care?

I think I know why...



To each their own.