LaxPower Back-Up Stick

pcowlax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:09 pm 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.

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??

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 12:12 am

pcowlax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:09 pm 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.

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.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:35 pm 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.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 pm 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?

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 pm 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?

HooDat wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 10:48 am

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:41 pm 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....

xxxxxxx wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:43 amSome schools will not entertain them and if they do, you need to be better than the guys he recruited.

xxxxxxx wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:43 am...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 wrote:$60k pays for a LOT of tutoring..... I am just saying....

laxpert wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 2:46 pm 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.

ABV 8.3% wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:35 pm As far as I know, football has no club team/tournament infrastructure, yet the recruiting profits along.