Recruiting, the exact science

[Typical Lax Dad]

when the recruits family visits the campus first stop should be the library because at the end of the day its always books first

THE…Ohio…STATE University

just cover your eyes, tld. they got a shot this year.

I like this year’s team.

[wgdsr]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

I was being too liberal with my use of the word routinely. What I was getting at was this if much older kids was the preference and what college coached wanted a class of 14 recruits would have 10 PGs or so. The vast majority of recruits would be PGs. That kind of routine. With the contact period being moved back to 9/1 of a junior year in HS….who is telling all of these kids to “reclassify”? You know who? Johnny’s dad looking to tilt the field with input from the club director and other cottage industry participants…..I get a lot of calls to talk to parents about it and talk them off the ledge…..many say this…. Eddie needs to reclassify? When I ask why, the answer is this…..because I see a lot of reclassified and kids PG get recruited. Rarely do I hear, Big U coach told me to….I know two instances where kids were asked to PG….classes were full at two Ivies, kids were seen “late” as rising seniors and directed to Prep Schools to get in the next class. Not go to Prep School and PG and we may recruit you if you look good.

Nobody will ever convince me that the way to develop a good lacrosse player or any athlete is to have him play down. I don’t buy it. Never will…..schools can keep on recruiting busts and 5 star 18 year olds that arrive as ordinary 3 star players….and have their fans on Fanlax wonder why Stevie ain’t getting no run in college…he was great in Summer Club ball and the Under Armour game….I don’t wonder why….I know why.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here is another example…folks here may know the story….a kid repeated 8th grade because he wanted to get one year as the starting HS goalie. His 8th grade classmate was a good goalie too…so he repeats 8th grade, goes through the program…commits to a power school as an early commit….I believe he started at least 3 years in college and was an AA. He didn’t reclassify to gain a recruiting edge. He wanted to start at least one year at his high school.

[wgdsr]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

I was being too liberal with my use of the word routinely. What I was getting at was this if much older kids was the preference and what college coached wanted a class of 14 recruits would have 10 PGs or so. The vast majority of recruits would be PGs. That kind of routine. With the contact period being moved back to 9/1 of a junior year in HS….who is telling all of these kids to “reclassify”? You know who? Johnny’s dad looking to tilt the field with input from the club director and other cottage industry participants…..I get a lot of calls to talk to parents about it and talk them off the ledge…..many say this…. Eddie needs to reclassify? When I ask why, the answer is this…..because I see a lot of reclassified and kids PG get recruited. Rarely do I hear, Big U coach told me to….I know two instances where kids were asked to PG….classes were full at two Ivies, kids were seen “late” as rising seniors and directed to Prep Schools to get in the next class. Not go to Prep School and PG and we may recruit you if you look good.

Nobody will ever convince me that the way to develop a good lacrosse player or any athlete is to have him play down. I don’t buy it. Never will…..schools can keep on recruiting busts and 5 star 18 year olds that arrive as ordinary 3 star players….and have their fans on Fanlax wonder why Stevie ain’t getting no run in college…he was great in Summer Club ball and the Under Armour game….I don’t wonder why….I know why.

you don't have 10 out of 14 pg'ing because the market isn't there yet. probably never will be. if you tell a top guy (for your recruiting station in life) "come here, but u need to pg 1st", and your competition peer says "come here on age, we think you can contribute", you're not getting that guy.
the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program.

but 14 x 4.5 years is a 63 man roster. there will be attrition, of course, but not everybody plays. you hope to have some diamonds work out, but for the guys down the recruiting chain for you, the extra year they figure gives that a better chance. and those lower in the recruiting class want the opportunity.

the timeline will give you a clue about who's pushing the button on it. coaches can only do post- 9/1. your example of rising senior is also what i mean. they could take a 2024, but they choose to take a 2023 and push them to back to a pg year.

if the decision to go pg (or reclass) is before 9/1 junior year (or way too late during senior year), that's johnnie or more likely his parents influenced by whomever to dress up their prospects for a better bid. and that's how they're reading other kids' opportunities.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

I was being too liberal with my use of the word routinely. What I was getting at was this if much older kids was the preference and what college coached wanted a class of 14 recruits would have 10 PGs or so. The vast majority of recruits would be PGs. That kind of routine. With the contact period being moved back to 9/1 of a junior year in HS….who is telling all of these kids to “reclassify”? You know who? Johnny’s dad looking to tilt the field with input from the club director and other cottage industry participants…..I get a lot of calls to talk to parents about it and talk them off the ledge…..many say this…. Eddie needs to reclassify? When I ask why, the answer is this…..because I see a lot of reclassified and kids PG get recruited. Rarely do I hear, Big U coach told me to….I know two instances where kids were asked to PG….classes were full at two Ivies, kids were seen “late” as rising seniors and directed to Prep Schools to get in the next class. Not go to Prep School and PG and we may recruit you if you look good.

Nobody will ever convince me that the way to develop a good lacrosse player or any athlete is to have him play down. I don’t buy it. Never will…..schools can keep on recruiting busts and 5 star 18 year olds that arrive as ordinary 3 star players….and have their fans on Fanlax wonder why Stevie ain’t getting no run in college…he was great in Summer Club ball and the Under Armour game….I don’t wonder why….I know why.

you don't have 10 out of 14 pg'ing because the market isn't there yet. probably never will be. if you tell a top guy (for your recruiting station in life) "come here, but u need to pg 1st", and your competition peer says "come here on age, we think you can contribute", you're not getting that guy.
the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program.

but 14 x 4.5 years is a 63 man roster. there will be attrition, of course, but not everybody plays. you hope to have some diamonds work out, but for the guys down the recruiting chain for you, the extra year they figure gives that a better chance. and those lower in the recruiting class want the opportunity.

the timeline will give you a clue about who's pushing the button on it. coaches can only do post- 9/1. your example of rising senior is also what i mean. they could take a 2024, but they choose to take a 2023 and push them to back to a pg year.

if the decision to go pg (or reclass) is before 9/1 junior year (or way too late during senior year), that's johnnie or more likely his parents influenced by whomever to dress up their prospects for a better bid. and that's how they're reading other kids' opportunities.

Some of these 5 stars got backed up because of COVID-19 and roster management. They have always been instances of “son you may need another year of development”. If the idea is that college lacrosse coaches want all the kids to reclassify or PG, they could easily say “it’s our preference and that is what we are looking for and we are recruiting those that can reclassify or PG.”. The ACC and Big Ten can recruit from that elite group and leave the scraps for everyone else….

I know a lot of kids that have PG and reclassified. In the old days it was kids that weren’t getting the looks they wanted in their class so they fell back to look good against younger players. Some did it twice…..I wonder why Matt Moore didn’t reclassify? Did Schellenberger reclass to get a better look? This was way back when there was no restrictions on when a player could be recruited….would have been easy to tell them to
Reclassify. Seems to me if you ain’t that good, go play against weaker competition so that you look better.

In the example you noted about the 2023 that is instructed to join a 2024 class, that often happens when the class is full. That kid was recruited/identified based on his peer group play. Not “go play against a younger group and we may recruit you then”. It’s “we saw you late, you developed. We didn’t like you last year but we like you this year. If you want to come here, PG and we have a recruiting slot for you…”. Happens all the time.

There are two issues being discussed BTW….the recruiting and the rankings. A kid playing 2 years down is not a 5 star player. You may disagree. A kid playing 2 years down may be a recruitable athlete and may even play but more likely, he won’t be a distinguished player in college.

I am never going to be convinced that recruiting or ranking a kid based on his performance against kids 18 to 24 months younger as a rising junior is the way to build top college lacrosse roster or a good way to identify 5 Star players.

Next spring, take your average junior middie and let him practice with the freshman team and let me know if he goes from averaging looking to a super star….. it’s not that hard.

[GaitsRightHand]

the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program

Brock Behrman #9 Recruit by IL in '22 committed to ND, reclassed to be a 2023.

I'm sure it has to do with ND having both Kav's and they are all somewhat similar, smaller, right-handed players, so my guess is PT has something to do with this reclass. But, just wanted to show that it does happen. Even as a high rated guy. With that being said- I agree with your points.

[Typical Lax Dad]

the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program

Brock Behrman #9 Recruit by IL in '22 committed to ND, reclassed to be a 2023.

I'm sure it has to do with ND having both Kav's and they are all somewhat similar, smaller, right-handed players, so my guess is PT has something to do with this reclass. But, just wanted to show that it does happen. Even as a high rated guy. With that being said- I agree with your points.

Yep. Actually Schellenberger “reclassified” at UVA because of the backup at his position….not to look better against weaker competition….COVID-19 and roster management has moved kids around…. Pretty sure that kid wasn’t told, go play with ‘23 and we will see if we like you then.

[wgdsr]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

I was being too liberal with my use of the word routinely. What I was getting at was this if much older kids was the preference and what college coached wanted a class of 14 recruits would have 10 PGs or so. The vast majority of recruits would be PGs. That kind of routine. With the contact period being moved back to 9/1 of a junior year in HS….who is telling all of these kids to “reclassify”? You know who? Johnny’s dad looking to tilt the field with input from the club director and other cottage industry participants…..I get a lot of calls to talk to parents about it and talk them off the ledge…..many say this…. Eddie needs to reclassify? When I ask why, the answer is this…..because I see a lot of reclassified and kids PG get recruited. Rarely do I hear, Big U coach told me to….I know two instances where kids were asked to PG….classes were full at two Ivies, kids were seen “late” as rising seniors and directed to Prep Schools to get in the next class. Not go to Prep School and PG and we may recruit you if you look good.

Nobody will ever convince me that the way to develop a good lacrosse player or any athlete is to have him play down. I don’t buy it. Never will…..schools can keep on recruiting busts and 5 star 18 year olds that arrive as ordinary 3 star players….and have their fans on Fanlax wonder why Stevie ain’t getting no run in college…he was great in Summer Club ball and the Under Armour game….I don’t wonder why….I know why.

you don't have 10 out of 14 pg'ing because the market isn't there yet. probably never will be. if you tell a top guy (for your recruiting station in life) "come here, but u need to pg 1st", and your competition peer says "come here on age, we think you can contribute", you're not getting that guy.
the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program.

but 14 x 4.5 years is a 63 man roster. there will be attrition, of course, but not everybody plays. you hope to have some diamonds work out, but for the guys down the recruiting chain for you, the extra year they figure gives that a better chance. and those lower in the recruiting class want the opportunity.

the timeline will give you a clue about who's pushing the button on it. coaches can only do post- 9/1. your example of rising senior is also what i mean. they could take a 2024, but they choose to take a 2023 and push them to back to a pg year.

if the decision to go pg (or reclass) is before 9/1 junior year (or way too late during senior year), that's johnnie or more likely his parents influenced by whomever to dress up their prospects for a better bid. and that's how they're reading other kids' opportunities.

Some of these 5 stars got backed up because of COVID-19 and roster management. They have always been instances of “son you may need another year of development”. If the idea is that college lacrosse coaches want all the kids to reclassify or PG, they could easily say “it’s our preference and that is what we are looking for and we are recruiting those that can reclassify or PG.”. The ACC and Big Ten can recruit from that elite group and leave the scraps for everyone else….
no one is saying it's all the kids and i just tried to comment that it's not. and i believe you know this and what i meant before i said it. what is your explanation for all the reclassing, and pg'ing and redshirting? that college coaches are too stupid to know (as a group) that younger kids might have higher ceilings? their team composition is what they're building. and from maturity to knowns to skillz to potential, they've made a call on what they want, each in their own dose.
I know a lot of kids that have PG and reclassified. In the old days it was kids that weren’t getting the looks they wanted in their class so they fell back to look good against younger players. Some did it twice
yes, this is a large part of it. people scratching for the holy grail.
…..I wonder why Matt Moore didn’t reclassify? Did Schellenberger reclass to get a better look? This was way back when there was no restrictions on when a player could be recruited….would have been easy to tell them to
Reclassify. Seems to me if you ain’t that good, go play against weaker competition so that you look better.
shellenberger actually did reclassify. after he arrived.
In the example you noted about the 2023 that is instructed to join a 2024 class, that often happens when the class is full. That kid was recruited/identified based on his peer group play. Not “go play against a younger group and we may recruit you then”. It’s “we saw you late, you developed. We didn’t like you last year but we like you this year. If you want to come here, PG and we have a recruiting slot for you…”. Happens all the time.
yup. and you disagree with you here. why don't they take a 2024 instead that they like and it's close? because people accept that this answer is viable. they prefer to have the older guy with less potential.
not that "people" have a choice. and you're one of the younger guys' strongest advocates.
There are two issues being discussed BTW….the recruiting and the rankings. A kid playing 2 years down is not a 5 star player. You may disagree. A kid playing 2 years down may be a recruitable athlete and may even play but more likely, he won’t be a distinguished player in college.

I am never going to be convinced that recruiting or ranking a kid based on his performance against kids 18 to 24 months younger as a rising junior is the way to build top college lacrosse roster or a good way to identify 5 Star players.

Next spring, take your average junior middie and let him practice with the freshman team and let me know if he goes from averaging looking to a super star….. it’s not that hard.

are there really that many in high school that are 24 months older as rising juniors? i can buy 18. and my kid played with a whole host of kids that are now 2 years back, but i assume most are 12-18 months. i'm sure anyone can have anecdotals, but i doubt it's widespread without knowing numbers.

[Typical Lax Dad]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

So college coaches are routinely asking the older kids to Reclassify or PG? What it is are parents looking for a recruiting advantage and/or club coaches looking for another year. One club director told a friend’s son 3 weeks ago that he should consider reclassifying. The player committed a week later and had plenty of offers. Relatively young by comparison. February birthday is now young if you are on grade…..nobody suggested he “PG” or reclassify other than his Club Director….He was holding a re-class in his back pocket if his offers were limited. I believe he will be a strong player in college. He played up for years and continues to do it whenever he can. It’s good development. Playing down isn’t good development. I watched Victor Wembenyama the past couple of days….he’s nice. I bet he isn’t going to play down.

EDIT: I should make it a point to also distinguish between ranking older kids and recruiting older kids.

i mean, yeah, college coaches are routinely asking guys to pg. by then, it's too late to reclassify h.s., but they also promulgate the earlier reclassifying by how they operate. they mostly turn on redshirting as well if they can. all of this is at the altar of roster management and putting players into the age range they prefer as a group.

it's been going on for quite a long time, not new. our service academies are the biggest purveyors, and they're our most revered institutions. the ivy's all about it (including p'ton), the acc, you name it.

anecdotal on a club-director, no insight on that. no doubt they have some people's ears.

I was being too liberal with my use of the word routinely. What I was getting at was this if much older kids was the preference and what college coached wanted a class of 14 recruits would have 10 PGs or so. The vast majority of recruits would be PGs. That kind of routine. With the contact period being moved back to 9/1 of a junior year in HS….who is telling all of these kids to “reclassify”? You know who? Johnny’s dad looking to tilt the field with input from the club director and other cottage industry participants…..I get a lot of calls to talk to parents about it and talk them off the ledge…..many say this…. Eddie needs to reclassify? When I ask why, the answer is this…..because I see a lot of reclassified and kids PG get recruited. Rarely do I hear, Big U coach told me to….I know two instances where kids were asked to PG….classes were full at two Ivies, kids were seen “late” as rising seniors and directed to Prep Schools to get in the next class. Not go to Prep School and PG and we may recruit you if you look good.

Nobody will ever convince me that the way to develop a good lacrosse player or any athlete is to have him play down. I don’t buy it. Never will…..schools can keep on recruiting busts and 5 star 18 year olds that arrive as ordinary 3 star players….and have their fans on Fanlax wonder why Stevie ain’t getting no run in college…he was great in Summer Club ball and the Under Armour game….I don’t wonder why….I know why.

you don't have 10 out of 14 pg'ing because the market isn't there yet. probably never will be. if you tell a top guy (for your recruiting station in life) "come here, but u need to pg 1st", and your competition peer says "come here on age, we think you can contribute", you're not getting that guy.
the #12 guy in the country isn't pg'ing (or reclassing). also it's advantageous to have your top guys come in and help as soon as possible. same goes down the line for your recruiting pool whatever level of program.

but 14 x 4.5 years is a 63 man roster. there will be attrition, of course, but not everybody plays. you hope to have some diamonds work out, but for the guys down the recruiting chain for you, the extra year they figure gives that a better chance. and those lower in the recruiting class want the opportunity.

the timeline will give you a clue about who's pushing the button on it. coaches can only do post- 9/1. your example of rising senior is also what i mean. they could take a 2024, but they choose to take a 2023 and push them to back to a pg year.

if the decision to go pg (or reclass) is before 9/1 junior year (or way too late during senior year), that's johnnie or more likely his parents influenced by whomever to dress up their prospects for a better bid. and that's how they're reading other kids' opportunities.

Some of these 5 stars got backed up because of COVID-19 and roster management. They have always been instances of “son you may need another year of development”. If the idea is that college lacrosse coaches want all the kids to reclassify or PG, they could easily say “it’s our preference and that is what we are looking for and we are recruiting those that can reclassify or PG.”. The ACC and Big Ten can recruit from that elite group and leave the scraps for everyone else….
no one is saying it's all the kids and i just tried to comment that it's not. and i believe you know this and what i meant before i said it. what is your explanation for all the reclassing, and pg'ing and redshirting? that college coaches are too stupid to know (as a group) that younger kids might have higher ceilings? their team composition is what they're building. and from maturity to knowns to skillz to potential, they've made a call on what they want, each in their own dose.
I know a lot of kids that have PG and reclassified. In the old days it was kids that weren’t getting the looks they wanted in their class so they fell back to look good against younger players. Some did it twice
yes, this is a large part of it. people scratching for the holy grail.
…..I wonder why Matt Moore didn’t reclassify? Did Schellenberger reclass to get a better look? This was way back when there was no restrictions on when a player could be recruited….would have been easy to tell them to
Reclassify. Seems to me if you ain’t that good, go play against weaker competition so that you look better.
shellenberger actually did reclassify. after he arrived.
In the example you noted about the 2023 that is instructed to join a 2024 class, that often happens when the class is full. That kid was recruited/identified based on his peer group play. Not “go play against a younger group and we may recruit you then”. It’s “we saw you late, you developed. We didn’t like you last year but we like you this year. If you want to come here, PG and we have a recruiting slot for you…”. Happens all the time.
yup. and you disagree with you here. why don't they take a 2024 instead that they like and it's close? because people accept that this answer is viable. they prefer to have the older guy with less potential.
not that "people" have a choice. and you're one of the younger guys' strongest advocates.
There are two issues being discussed BTW….the recruiting and the rankings. A kid playing 2 years down is not a 5 star player. You may disagree. A kid playing 2 years down may be a recruitable athlete and may even play but more likely, he won’t be a distinguished player in college.

I am never going to be convinced that recruiting or ranking a kid based on his performance against kids 18 to 24 months younger as a rising junior is the way to build top college lacrosse roster or a good way to identify 5 Star players.

Next spring, take your average junior middie and let him practice with the freshman team and let me know if he goes from averaging looking to a super star….. it’s not that hard.

are there really that many in high school that are 24 months older as rising juniors? i can buy 18. and my kid played with a whole host of kids that are now 2 years back, but i assume most are 12-18 months. i'm sure anyone can have anecdotals, but i doubt it's widespread without knowing numbers.

I don’t believe coaches are too dumb to know the kids are older. They are too dumb to understand that it’s fools gold. Many are products of the system so what they know is what they know.

[wgdsr]

i believe that's what i asked (if they're too dumb to know younger kids have higher ceilings)?
and yeah... we're in agreement. this is the system they're going with.

[Typical Lax Dad]

i believe that's what i asked (if they're too dumb to know younger kids have higher ceilings)?
and yeah... we're in agreement. this is the system they're going with.

OK. I think ranking a kid that is 18 to 24 months older than the competition as a 4 or 5 star prospect is dumber than recruiting that kid. Nothing wrong with 3 star recruits, which is what many of them become. That is most kids.

[youthathletics]

Nothing wrong with 3 star recruits, which is what many of them become. That is most kids.

+1

[henryben]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

"Parent's measurables"

Funny story - our kid is on the small side, and was recruited during Covid, when D1 coaches weren't allowed to see kids (or their parents) in person. When our son's future coach finally met ME in person (I'm not tall) he was probably disappointed to see that his recruit wasn't gonna grow that much. So Covid helped our kid, but whether he sees the field or not, it's all up to him now....

[jersey shore lax]

Here is another example…folks here may know the story….a kid repeated 8th grade because he wanted to get one year as the starting HS goalie. His 8th grade classmate was a good goalie too…so he repeats 8th grade, goes through the program…commits to a power school as an early commit….I believe he started at least 3 years in college and was an AA. He didn’t reclassify to gain a recruiting edge. He wanted to start at least one year at his high school.

If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, the family got torched online for doing this - in hindsight they obviously made the correct decision for their kid. 4 year starter at an elite academic school and an outstanding college career. great kid, great family and congratulations to them for doing what was in their child's best interest.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Here is another example…folks here may know the story….a kid repeated 8th grade because he wanted to get one year as the starting HS goalie. His 8th grade classmate was a good goalie too…so he repeats 8th grade, goes through the program…commits to a power school as an early commit….I believe he started at least 3 years in college and was an AA. He didn’t reclassify to gain a recruiting edge. He wanted to start at least one year at his high school.

If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, the family got torched online for doing this - in hindsight they obviously made the correct decision for their kid. 4 year starter at an elite academic school and an outstanding college career. great kid, great family and congratulations to them for doing what was in their child's best interest.

Yep. +1….. Had nothing to do with positioning the player for recruiting. Wanted more certainty to start at least one year for his high school team. The other kid not there….he would have stayed on grade. He wasn’t a kid that was dodging the competition to enhance his recruiting stock. (Goalie position is different from field positions also).

[MDlaxfan76]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

[wgdsr]

USA HOCKEY YOUTH HOCKEY AGE GROUPS
The new age classifications are as follows:

Age Category: 8 - Age Division: 8 or Under (8U)
Age Category: 9-10 - Age Division: 10 or Under (10U)
Age Category: 11-12 - Age Division: 12 or Under (12U)
Age Category: 13-14 - Age Division: 14 or Under (14U)
Age Category: 15-16 - Age Division: 16 & Under (16U)
Age Category: 17-18 - Age Division: 18 & Under (18U)

What hockey coach in his right mind is going to offer an 18 year old playing U16? In lacrosse, we call them 5 Stars. I don’t buy it.

Most hockey players are in their early 20’s when they enter college. Are you evaluating for long term pro prospects or to build a team? Athletes are in their prime from 22-26 years of age. Not 18-22. Union won a national championship in hockey with a team full of 24 and 25 year olds because the more “talented” NHL prospect guys at blue blood hockey schools were all 18-21 years old that year. They won because they were more physically mature despite not having as much NHL level talent. Wouldn’t that be counter to peoples arguments here?

How would union have done against 24 and 25 year olds? The hockey players at Union were recruited based on playing U16 as 18 year olds? I don’t believe it.

Coaches don’t recruit based on how you’re playing against anyone. They recruit based on a projection of talent and development. If you run a 4.5 and are 6’2. Then whether you are playing against 16 year olds or 20 year olds you still run a 4.5 and are 6’2.

If you don’t have a frame to put in weight and maintain speed, then you don’t project well. It doesn’t matter what age kid you are playing against.

Just like scoring 5 goals in a club game doesn’t equate to you having the ability to score 5 goals at the college level.

In case it isn’t obvious, this is a generality.

I am biased. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and ACC lacrosse so I am probably not the right guy. My perception may in fact be distorted. BTW, lacrosse isn’t football where a combine can get you recruited without having put on pads.

A 18 year old against a 16 year old may in fact “look” fast.

both things can be true. this is what lax coaches want. as in college hockey, they're looking for the squad that they will be at (often) older ages for that 4 year (or 5-6 year in the era of covid) span.

that's why they muscled uslacrosse in changing age groups to grad groups. in addition to being lazy (or not having resources, take your pick).

it's why kids pg.

it's why by their system holdbacks are promoted.

they absolutely know the age of everyone, and their parents' measurables, and believe working it around that construct is best. maybe they don't think they're good at projecting, or don't want that variable.

there's no pro league really that fits into this, so it's the window they want. young kids, on age or less... too bad. go pg.

"Parent's measurables"

Funny story - our kid is on the small side, and was recruited during Covid, when D1 coaches weren't allowed to see kids (or their parents) in person. When our son's future coach finally met ME in person (I'm not tall) he was probably disappointed to see that his recruit wasn't gonna grow that much. So Covid helped our kid, but whether he sees the field or not, it's all up to him now....

if he's quick/fast and/or scrappy, he can leave a mark.

good job staying out of the mix (and background on zoom).

[smoova]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

Lacrosse rankings, tournaments, etc are run for the benefit of two groups: (i) wealthy parents and (ii) college coaches. Neither of those groups have any interest in exposing player ages.

[MDlaxfan76]

What I don't understand about recruit rankings, recruiting tournaments, etc is why there isn't simple transparency on each participant's birth date and thus age.

Just make that an explicit part of participation in a tournament and an explicit aspect of any recruit analysis...stop with the "by class" emphasis (fine to report on that as well), but make clear what the birth date is.

Same as height, weight, whatever combine scores, and 'eye analysis'...make age/DoB transparent.

Don't recruit rankings and tournaments etc work that way in other sports?

Lacrosse rankings, tournaments, etc are run for the benefit of two groups: (i) wealthy parents and (ii) college coaches. Neither of those groups have any interest in exposing player ages.

Others sports do it as a matter of normal course.
But, yeah, someone needs to be insisting.