LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Formerhound wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 4:10 pm

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 11:27 am Quinnipiac's Ryan Donnery to Ohio State https://x.com/MChandik26/status/1798372487740412109

Many of OSU's best offensive players this year and next are transfers from Quinnipiac, Binghamton, Cleveland State, Fairfield, and York College. Quite the indictment of their recruiting IMO

A ton of recruits leave because their coach is an jerk. Screams constantly. I remember a kid who’d played for him on US U21 team who decomitted after his US team tourney because he couldn’t fathom spending 4 years with this guy.

AreaLax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 6:30 pm .@UVAMensLax has landed former @Bryant_MLax midfielder Johnny Hackett out of the portal, according to multiple sources. The two-time First Team All-America East pick posted 64 goals and 37 assists in his first two seasons with the Bulldogs.

https://x.com/tyxanders/status/17984821 ... EO2hFStaxg

AreaLax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2024 6:30 pm .@UVAMensLax has landed former @Bryant_MLax midfielder Johnny Hackett out of the portal, according to multiple sources. The two-time First Team All-America East pick posted 64 goals and 37 assists in his first two seasons with the Bulldogs.

https://x.com/tyxanders/status/17984821 ... EO2hFStaxg

HopFan16 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 04, 2024 11:21 am Latest in bold

Incoming transfers to
Boston U: Sam Burns (M, Ohio State)
Canisius: Jeff Douglas (D, Ursinus)
Delaware: Cory Capri (A, Yale)
Duke: Aiden Blake (M, Cornell), Graham Blake (A, Harvard), Paul Weathington (SSDM, Princeton)
Georgetown: Fulton Bayman (A, Notre Dame)
High Point: Jeb Brenfleck (A, Penn State)
Hofstra: Jon Singer (G, Ursinus)
Jacksonville: Drew Kessenich (M, Detroit Mercy), Dom Zingo (D, Lynchburg)
Johns Hopkins: Jack Monfort (SSDM, Yale), John McKee (FO, Dickinson), Patrick Hackler (SSDM, Yale)
Maryland: Noah Armitage (M, Stony Brook), Bryce Ford (A, Fairfield)
Michigan: Pace Billings (LSM, Princeton), Lukas Stanat (M, Princeton), Will Byrne (A, Bowdoin), DJ Dixon (M, Wesleyan)
NJIT: Russ Maher (M, Johns Hopkins)
North Carolina: Michael Gianforcaro (G, Princeton), Spencer Wirtheim (M, Cornell), Nick Dupuis (A, Stony Brook), Andrew O'Berry (SSDM, Harvard)
Notre Dame: Greg Campisi (LSM, Harvard)
Providence: Dan Donahue (G, Union)
Rutgers: Joseph Juengerkes (SSDM, Princeton), Ethan Barnard (FO, Bowdoin)
Saint Joseph's: Keaton Zavitz (M, Ohio State)
Stony Brook: Colin Reilly (M, North Carolina)
Syracuse: Mike Grace (D, RIT)
UMass: Gavin Begonia (A, Ohio State)
Villanova: Tyler Sandoval (FO, Princeton)

*Notable* players in portal:
Attack
Eric Malever, Maryland
Luke Grayum, Richmond
Dutch Furlong, Bucknell
Matthew Keegan, Binghamton
Chris Patterson, Hobart
Mason Bregman, UMass
Blake Behlen, Stony Brook
Matt Caputo, Ohio State
Greyson Vorgang, Denver
Koleton Marquis, Johns Hopkins

Midfield
Johnny Hackett, Bryant
Ryan Donnery, Quinnipiac
Trace Hogan, Merrimack
Brian Russell, Merrimack
Tommy Barnds, Princeton
Chris Cusolito, Providence
Shane O'Leary, UMass
Jack Aimone, Rutgers
Vinnie Trujillo, Syracuse
Charles Balsamo, Duke
Nick Rizzo, High Point
Jack Dowd, Salisbury (D3)

Defense
Colin Hart, Brown
Mitch Dunham, Mount St. Mary's
Aiden Bodonyi, Ohio State
AJ Hernandez, Navy
Brooks Rhine, Hobart

Goalie
Luke Staudt, Loyola
Jamison MacLachlan, Stony Brook
Connor Theriault, Brown
Jack VanValkenburgh, Albany
Dylan Renner, Adelphi (D2)

FO
Nick Ramsey, Yale
Caleb Hammett, UMass
Rocco Mareno, Towson

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

This is absolutely an issue. If you take a step back and zoom out on the entirety of D1 lacrosse, the ACC and B1G have such resource advantages over the rest of the division. The Ivies, through their unparalleled alumni networks, could pretty easily not just close those resource gaps but actually pass the ACC and B1G in resource allocation for lacrosse. But that looks a little hit and miss right now.

What this means, IMO, is that schools need to have differentiate strategies to compete. We're in Moneyball territory. Rutgers has realized they can't recruit like Maryland, Penn State, and Hopkins in conference, so they've loaded up on portal players. It's worked in some years but appears to be fading as a strategy because the portal isn't as deep.

Coda is probably right that adding 3-5 portal guys for programs with realistic shots at the Final 4 is worth it. But if you're a typical, say, Big East program, that's probably not going to happen by loading up on portal guys. In football, you see this conveyor belt with transfers. Lower level programs lose their best to the level above them. Right now, that's not happening in lacrosse. But it probably could. If you're an A10 program, getting the best D2 or D3 transfers builds the depth and quality of your program.

Matt Kinnear from IL has told this story before. They brought Andy Shay in to talk about his program, and Andy told them that Yale really made a jump when he focused on the bottom of his roster. When he made the bottom of the roster stronger, the whole program got lifted up. Now, it's probably a little harder now that the portal has made the former black-box transfer market way more transparent because bottom of the roster guys at Top 15 programs might think about dropping down a rung in order to get more playing time. But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

Outside of probably 10 or so programs, portal hunting should be used differently. For most programs, bringing in transfers probably does stunt the growth of your roster. I brought up Rutgers earlier. Their portal strategy sure looks like it's hurt the development of their younger players.

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:42 am

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

This is absolutely an issue. If you take a step back and zoom out on the entirety of D1 lacrosse, the ACC and B1G have such resource advantages over the rest of the division. The Ivies, through their unparalleled alumni networks, could pretty easily not just close those resource gaps but actually pass the ACC and B1G in resource allocation for lacrosse. But that looks a little hit and miss right now.

What this means, IMO, is that schools need to have differentiate strategies to compete. We're in Moneyball territory. Rutgers has realized they can't recruit like Maryland, Penn State, and Hopkins in conference, so they've loaded up on portal players. It's worked in some years but appears to be fading as a strategy because the portal isn't as deep.

Coda is probably right that adding 3-5 portal guys for programs with realistic shots at the Final 4 is worth it. But if you're a typical, say, Big East program, that's probably not going to happen by loading up on portal guys. In football, you see this conveyor belt with transfers. Lower level programs lose their best to the level above them. Right now, that's not happening in lacrosse. But it probably could. If you're an A10 program, getting the best D2 or D3 transfers builds the depth and quality of your program.

Matt Kinnear from IL has told this story before. They brought Andy Shay in to talk about his program, and Andy told them that Yale really made a jump when he focused on the bottom of his roster. When he made the bottom of the roster stronger, the whole program got lifted up. Now, it's probably a little harder now that the portal has made the former black-box transfer market way more transparent because bottom of the roster guys at Top 15 programs might think about dropping down a rung in order to get more playing time. But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

Outside of probably 10 or so programs, portal hunting should be used differently. For most programs, bringing in transfers probably does stunt the growth of your roster. I brought up Rutgers earlier. Their portal strategy sure looks like it's hurt the development of their younger players.

Top football programs are taking 3-6 guys, but that is for an 85 man roster. They also have another advantage. Football rosters turn over much quicker. Lacrosse kid is more likely to stay around with his partial scholarship, than a football kid is. There are 10 players on the field for lacrosse and 22 for football. If you have 5 holes to fill in lacrosse that is essentially like football team taking an entire offense. If you have 5 holes on a lacrosse team, well you probably should focus on the next year because this year isnt the one.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:09 pm

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:42 am

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

This is absolutely an issue. If you take a step back and zoom out on the entirety of D1 lacrosse, the ACC and B1G have such resource advantages over the rest of the division. The Ivies, through their unparalleled alumni networks, could pretty easily not just close those resource gaps but actually pass the ACC and B1G in resource allocation for lacrosse. But that looks a little hit and miss right now.

What this means, IMO, is that schools need to have differentiate strategies to compete. We're in Moneyball territory. Rutgers has realized they can't recruit like Maryland, Penn State, and Hopkins in conference, so they've loaded up on portal players. It's worked in some years but appears to be fading as a strategy because the portal isn't as deep.

Coda is probably right that adding 3-5 portal guys for programs with realistic shots at the Final 4 is worth it. But if you're a typical, say, Big East program, that's probably not going to happen by loading up on portal guys. In football, you see this conveyor belt with transfers. Lower level programs lose their best to the level above them. Right now, that's not happening in lacrosse. But it probably could. If you're an A10 program, getting the best D2 or D3 transfers builds the depth and quality of your program.

Matt Kinnear from IL has told this story before. They brought Andy Shay in to talk about his program, and Andy told them that Yale really made a jump when he focused on the bottom of his roster. When he made the bottom of the roster stronger, the whole program got lifted up. Now, it's probably a little harder now that the portal has made the former black-box transfer market way more transparent because bottom of the roster guys at Top 15 programs might think about dropping down a rung in order to get more playing time. But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

Outside of probably 10 or so programs, portal hunting should be used differently. For most programs, bringing in transfers probably does stunt the growth of your roster. I brought up Rutgers earlier. Their portal strategy sure looks like it's hurt the development of their younger players.

Top football programs are taking 3-6 guys, but that is for an 85 man roster. They also have another advantage. Football rosters turn over much quicker. Lacrosse kid is more likely to stay around with his partial scholarship, than a football kid is. There are 10 players on the field for lacrosse and 22 for football. If you have 5 holes to fill in lacrosse that is essentially like football team taking an entire offense. If you have 5 holes on a lacrosse team, well you probably should focus on the next year because this year isnt the one.

not disagreeing with your overall point, but 3-6 is not the landscape for football. it's double digits in and out primarily. and sometimes not with a 1 in front.

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:22 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:09 pm

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:42 am

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

This is absolutely an issue. If you take a step back and zoom out on the entirety of D1 lacrosse, the ACC and B1G have such resource advantages over the rest of the division. The Ivies, through their unparalleled alumni networks, could pretty easily not just close those resource gaps but actually pass the ACC and B1G in resource allocation for lacrosse. But that looks a little hit and miss right now.

What this means, IMO, is that schools need to have differentiate strategies to compete. We're in Moneyball territory. Rutgers has realized they can't recruit like Maryland, Penn State, and Hopkins in conference, so they've loaded up on portal players. It's worked in some years but appears to be fading as a strategy because the portal isn't as deep.

Coda is probably right that adding 3-5 portal guys for programs with realistic shots at the Final 4 is worth it. But if you're a typical, say, Big East program, that's probably not going to happen by loading up on portal guys. In football, you see this conveyor belt with transfers. Lower level programs lose their best to the level above them. Right now, that's not happening in lacrosse. But it probably could. If you're an A10 program, getting the best D2 or D3 transfers builds the depth and quality of your program.

Matt Kinnear from IL has told this story before. They brought Andy Shay in to talk about his program, and Andy told them that Yale really made a jump when he focused on the bottom of his roster. When he made the bottom of the roster stronger, the whole program got lifted up. Now, it's probably a little harder now that the portal has made the former black-box transfer market way more transparent because bottom of the roster guys at Top 15 programs might think about dropping down a rung in order to get more playing time. But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

Outside of probably 10 or so programs, portal hunting should be used differently. For most programs, bringing in transfers probably does stunt the growth of your roster. I brought up Rutgers earlier. Their portal strategy sure looks like it's hurt the development of their younger players.

Top football programs are taking 3-6 guys, but that is for an 85 man roster. They also have another advantage. Football rosters turn over much quicker. Lacrosse kid is more likely to stay around with his partial scholarship, than a football kid is. There are 10 players on the field for lacrosse and 22 for football. If you have 5 holes to fill in lacrosse that is essentially like football team taking an entire offense. If you have 5 holes on a lacrosse team, well you probably should focus on the next year because this year isnt the one.

not disagreeing with your overall point, but 3-6 is not the landscape for football. it's double digits in and out primarily. and sometimes not with a 1 in front.

Underestimate, but they are churning the bottom of the roster. Based on the top 10 football teams. They added 119 players and saw 227 leave the program via the portal. I am not seeing that in lacrosse.

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am
But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:46 pm

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:22 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:09 pm

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:42 am

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am

coda wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:19 am

Powellfan22 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 10:02 am

Terpslax1991 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 9:33 am What are some opinions on best portal classes?

As a Terp fan, I feel like we found 2 starters at Midfield. I think Hopkins did well with the 2 SSDM’s/G/FO. I know ND only picked up the Harvard LSM but he’s a really nice player. UVA found a difference maker at Midfield.

Interested to see where Balsamo, Malever and Keegan land.

UNC belongs in the discussion, they probably got the top player overall in Gianforcaro. Who knows what they'll do with that talent, but they've added quite a bit.

I don't know much about Michigan's class, but they are bringing in a lot of guys. There is definitely a drop off in past years in terms of quantity, so curious to see how impactful these classes will be. Syracuse brought in five guys who saw meaningful minutes for them last year. UNC could see that next year, but nobody else looks particularly close to that number.

I think coaching staffs are going to come to the realization that if you are not in the final 4, you are wasting your roster development taking 4-5 transfer players a year.

This is absolutely an issue. If you take a step back and zoom out on the entirety of D1 lacrosse, the ACC and B1G have such resource advantages over the rest of the division. The Ivies, through their unparalleled alumni networks, could pretty easily not just close those resource gaps but actually pass the ACC and B1G in resource allocation for lacrosse. But that looks a little hit and miss right now.

What this means, IMO, is that schools need to have differentiate strategies to compete. We're in Moneyball territory. Rutgers has realized they can't recruit like Maryland, Penn State, and Hopkins in conference, so they've loaded up on portal players. It's worked in some years but appears to be fading as a strategy because the portal isn't as deep.

Coda is probably right that adding 3-5 portal guys for programs with realistic shots at the Final 4 is worth it. But if you're a typical, say, Big East program, that's probably not going to happen by loading up on portal guys. In football, you see this conveyor belt with transfers. Lower level programs lose their best to the level above them. Right now, that's not happening in lacrosse. But it probably could. If you're an A10 program, getting the best D2 or D3 transfers builds the depth and quality of your program.

Matt Kinnear from IL has told this story before. They brought Andy Shay in to talk about his program, and Andy told them that Yale really made a jump when he focused on the bottom of his roster. When he made the bottom of the roster stronger, the whole program got lifted up. Now, it's probably a little harder now that the portal has made the former black-box transfer market way more transparent because bottom of the roster guys at Top 15 programs might think about dropping down a rung in order to get more playing time. But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

Outside of probably 10 or so programs, portal hunting should be used differently. For most programs, bringing in transfers probably does stunt the growth of your roster. I brought up Rutgers earlier. Their portal strategy sure looks like it's hurt the development of their younger players.


****The Matt Kinnear/Andy Shay situation makes no sense, UNLESS the Yale administration was complicit and allowed more admission spots. I know Tills had a few walk-ons that saw the field at Harvard, but it is near impossible to make "the bottom of the roster stronger" at an Ivy. Every program wants competition for playing time--getting the bodies to do so is another story...

Sportin' Life wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 12:49 pm

Wheels wrote: ↑Thu Jun 06, 2024 11:35 am
But if I'm running a MAAC or A10-type program, I'd be looking to see if I can get the best D2 and D3 transfers to build up the overall quality of the program.

I think you're correct in theory but in practice the best D2 and D3 players (Charlie Bertrand, Ronan Jacoby, Will Helm, Jack Boyden, Mason Kohn as examples) are transferring to top D1 programs not to the MAAC or A10. Nevertheless it would be a sound roster improvement strategy for mid-major programs to focus on landing top 40 quality D2 and D3 transfers.