Transfer Portal 2024

[coda]

As mentioned earlier, what made those Rutgers teams with the Kirsts so good is that they had a base of developed players that played at a high level. Adding in 3-4 transfers to get them over the top made sense. What happened last year and this year looks different.

Kulas looked promising 2 years ago, but he didn't take that next step last year. Aimione looked really good last year in his first year as a starter. I thought Teresky would take that next step, but he really didn't, either. Knoblach and Scott are All-B1G performers who are home grown. But it didn't seem like there were any other players last year who broke out. Is that why Brecht hits the portal so hard? Because he's missed on recruits or they haven't developed? Or is his hitting the portal so hard causing players to not develop?

Let's be honest. If any of our preferred schools took in 11 transfers in a year, we'd be all for it and could justify it. To an outsider, though, it looks like something is amiss. I don't fault Brecht for using any talent acquisition strategy he feels like he needs to use in order to win. Winning in the B1G is hard. Making the NCAA tournament is hard. Coaches in the B1G make a lot of money, and they have pressure to win. Or they will lose their jobs.

If this year's results in Piscataway look like last year's results, you have to think that Brecht changes tactics. COVID years are winding down. He might not have as many portal options. While it looks like most big programs are winding down their reliance on upperclass/grad transfers, it does stand out that RU, Jacksonville, and Syracuse have doubled down. At least Cuse is bringing in highly regarded HS recruits, and Gait's portal activity looks more like a stop gap measure than a long term strategy. Galloway and Brecht look like they're pursuing a win now and figure out long term later strategy.

It really comes down the the average. As an example, I could see someone like Dartmouth taking 11 transfers this year or next (not saying they will or can). That is a situation where a new coach is coming in and trying to build his team. Perhaps there is a legit reason Rutgers took 11 this year. The real test is what is the average transfer takes for Rutgers over a the last couple years and how does that compare to other schools. If you are taking 5-11 a year, you are a portal driven school. IF this turns out to be a one off, than it is an overreaction.

[MDlaxfan76]

Just to be clear, Dartmouth has never taken a transfer lax player. At least not in the past 5 decades.

And while we alums are advocating at least being open to one or two, there’s no chance, zero, zippo of 5, much less 11. Ain’t happening.

And no Dartmouth alumni who I know would be applauding such, much less 2 years in a row.

But yes there are obviously schools that take lots of non athlete transfers each year and so there is no friction to doing so with athletes.

One thing I might want to check on, however, is Title IX compliance.

Any issues at Rutgers for instance with roster size?

[Farfromgeneva]

As mentioned earlier, what made those Rutgers teams with the Kirsts so good is that they had a base of developed players that played at a high level. Adding in 3-4 transfers to get them over the top made sense. What happened last year and this year looks different.

Kulas looked promising 2 years ago, but he didn't take that next step last year. Aimione looked really good last year in his first year as a starter. I thought Teresky would take that next step, but he really didn't, either. Knoblach and Scott are All-B1G performers who are home grown. But it didn't seem like there were any other players last year who broke out. Is that why Brecht hits the portal so hard? Because he's missed on recruits or they haven't developed? Or is his hitting the portal so hard causing players to not develop?

Let's be honest. If any of our preferred schools took in 11 transfers in a year, we'd be all for it and could justify it. To an outsider, though, it looks like something is amiss. I don't fault Brecht for using any talent acquisition strategy he feels like he needs to use in order to win. Winning in the B1G is hard. Making the NCAA tournament is hard. Coaches in the B1G make a lot of money, and they have pressure to win. Or they will lose their jobs.

If this year's results in Piscataway look like last year's results, you have to think that Brecht changes tactics. COVID years are winding down. He might not have as many portal options. While it looks like most big programs are winding down their reliance on upperclass/grad transfers, it does stand out that RU, Jacksonville, and Syracuse have doubled down. At least Cuse is bringing in highly regarded HS recruits, and Gait's portal activity looks more like a stop gap measure than a long term strategy. Galloway and Brecht look like they're pursuing a win now and figure out long term later strategy.

You make it sound like changing or unwinding strategy is easy on a dime. But the follow on effects could last years.

And I don’t care that he choose this path but it’s not like he has company of peers. I wouldn’t even include syracuse in this discussion for the reasons already mentioned. It’s a massive gamble is what it is. Defending it as logical doesn’t make sense but we’re here now and Rutgers folks have to hope it works out. Bending logic and pointing at others is just silly.

[HopFan16]

11+ transfers means there's either a problem now or you're admitting there was a problem earlier that you're now forced to paper over. There is no way all 11 of these guys have a real impact on the field. It'll probably be half that. There are a few who should help immediately but I'm not seeing a lot of guys who will truly move the needle like the Kirsts did. They're bringing in a bunch of guys from lesser programs. It just isn't screaming out "impact" to me. What it does say is that there were precious few guys on that roster whom Brecht trusted going into 2024. He clearly did not think highly of the returning SSDMs, that is for sure. Cuse will get more out of their 8 transfers than Rutgers does with their 11+.

I feel similarly about Ohio State's group but their struggles integrating transfers last season is already well-documented.

Vardaro is the big prize who has yet to announce but I remember the Georgetown guys hinting in their thread awhile ago that they think they were in the mix for him.

Outside of that, #PortalSZN is winding down. Not as crazy as the previous year and next year won't be as crazy as this year.

[1766]

There is no problem. It's an opportunity to amass proven talent. It's job 1 of any program. Get the most talent you can any way you can. ND didn't have an issue winning the NC with transfers and neither did Maryland the year before. We will see who gets more out of their transfers. That's the great thing about sports. SSDM needed to be addressed. The staff is very excited with what they've brought in.

[HopFan16]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

[Wheels]

You make it sound like changing or unwinding strategy is easy on a dime. But the follow on effects could last years.

And I don’t care that he choose this path but it’s not like he has company of peers. I wouldn’t even include syracuse in this discussion for the reasons already mentioned. It’s a massive gamble is what it is. Defending it as logical doesn’t make sense but we’re here now and Rutgers folks have to hope it works out. Bending logic and pointing at others is just silly.

Here's what I think a wind down would look like. You bring in two consecutive large freshman classes. You pare those classes with selective transfers that have at least 2 years remaining of eligibility. Year 1 you water down your schedule to load up on cheap non-conference wins that also allow your freshman to get a lot of playing time. You probably get your teeth kicked in during your conference schedule. Year 2 should mean you have a large sophomore class that has experience with small numbers of upperclassmen, and you toughen your schedule up in a game or two. As a coach, it means your down year will be an overall winning record (or .500). Year 2 has signs of progress and still a winning record. Years 3 and 4 you're back to challenging for NCAA Tournaments.

It's basically what Brecht did before that led to the Final 4 season. It's the over-reliance last year and this year on one-and-done players.

While 1776 will disagree and say nothing is wrong in the program, I've talked to enough Maryland players who have friends at Rutgers who say the same thing. The locker room last year had cliques. The players aren't all on the same page. That was different during the two previous seasons. Could last year have been an aberration? Sure. Maybe the influx of transfers this season will clear out some of the locker room problems.

At some point, though, Brecht won't be able to continue to load in transfers because the COVID years are expiring. He can still get transfers that have 2-3 years of experience remaining, but they're not going to have the maturity and game experience of the 4th and 5th year people he's bringing in now.

And 1776 is actually helping Hop16 make his point. Brecht had to bring in these transfers from lower programs because they are upgrades to what he has now. Otherwise, he wouldn't bring them in.

[Farfromgeneva]

You make it sound like changing or unwinding strategy is easy on a dime. But the follow on effects could last years.

And I don’t care that he choose this path but it’s not like he has company of peers. I wouldn’t even include syracuse in this discussion for the reasons already mentioned. It’s a massive gamble is what it is. Defending it as logical doesn’t make sense but we’re here now and Rutgers folks have to hope it works out. Bending logic and pointing at others is just silly.

Here's what I think a wind down would look like. You bring in two consecutive large freshman classes. You pare those classes with selective transfers that have at least 2 years remaining of eligibility. Year 1 you water down your schedule to load up on cheap non-conference wins that also allow your freshman to get a lot of playing time. You probably get your teeth kicked in during your conference schedule. Year 2 should mean you have a large sophomore class that has experience with small numbers of upperclassmen, and you toughen your schedule up in a game or two. As a coach, it means your down year will be an overall winning record (or .500). Year 2 has signs of progress and still a winning record. Years 3 and 4 you're back to challenging for NCAA Tournaments.

It's basically what Brecht did before that led to the Final 4 season. It's the over-reliance last year and this year on one-and-done players.

While 1776 will disagree and say nothing is wrong in the program, I've talked to enough Maryland players who have friends at Rutgers who say the same thing. The locker room last year had cliques. The players aren't all on the same page. That was different during the two previous seasons. Could last year have been an aberration? Sure. Maybe the influx of transfers this season will clear out some of the locker room problems.

At some point, though, Brecht won't be able to continue to load in transfers because the COVID years are expiring. He can still get transfers that have 2-3 years of experience remaining, but they're not going to have the maturity and game experience of the 4th and 5th year people he's bringing in now.

And 1776 is actually helping Hop16 make his point. Brecht had to bring in these transfers from lower programs because they are upgrades to what he has now. Otherwise, he wouldn't bring them in.

I could see that path as one of the more logical ones but getting ones teeth kicked in in conference means being bottom of a highly competitive pack in recruiting so how do you get the next few classes to sign on if you’re like 7-7, 8-6 and 1-5 or worse in conference. They won’t recruit like Mich or PSU have at the bottom of the big ten. So maybe the path he has to take is logical but still not super high probability of success given the competitive environment. Might need a total tear down at some point.

Yes our friend defends the silliness even when it’s just posed as an observation because his identity is sadly tied to the success of the program or athletics at Rutgers but yet doesn’t seem to understand team dynamics of having played a team sport at any higher level. Like a super fantasy dork. I’m sure he’ll make some pathetic comment about hobart whom I’m passionate about but I don’t care because I don’t wrap my identity so tightly in this stuff for it to matter, I can post a million times here and still have a full life outside of this like any competent person who’s not retired and bored.

[coda]

There is no problem. It's an opportunity to amass proven talent. It's job 1 of any program. Get the most talent you can any way you can. ND didn't have an issue winning the NC with transfers and neither did Maryland the year before. We will see who gets more out of their transfers. That's the great thing about sports. SSDM needed to be addressed. The staff is very excited with what they've brought in.

No offense, but I think this is short-sighted way of looking at things. Every coach needs to balance what is best for this season (the short-term) and what is best for the program (the long term). It is not always going to be the same percentage. Taking a heavy portal class is going to impact your younger players and potentially your ability to recruit. If you are on the precipice of a NC, I get going all in on the portal, like I said earlier it is about the average portal takes. If you are taking large portal numbers and not making the tournament, the long-term outlook is not going to be good.

[jff97]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

This gets to the point that the problem for Rutgers isn't necessarily the number of transfers, but what holes the transfers have to fill compared to other schools. With Rutgers recruiting at a lower level than the rest of the ACC, B1G and Ivy they need the transfers to help them catch up to those schools while their competitors can just use transfers to plug a hole or 2 and get them over the top.

I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything, but it's staggering to see the level Rutgers recruits at compared to their peers. I've posted about the blue-chip index on here a few times, which is an idea I took from college football. The theory is to compete for a national championship, you need to be pulling at least 50 percent four or five star players over the last four years. I was able to use Inside Lacrosse's database to create something similar for the last three seasons. All three title teams made the cut, as did 11 of the 12 FInal Four teams from the previous 3 years.

The only one that didn't? Rutgers, and it's not even close. The 2022 team had a blue chip rate of just 17 percent, and last year wasn't much better at 19 percent. The only other ACC and B1G team who didn't hit the Blue Chip mark this year besides Rutgers was Hopkins, who was much closer at 45 percent. Even Georgetown, who has brought in a lot of transfers in the COVID era, has had a Blue Chip rate over 50 percent each of the last three years. Rutgers mark for 2023 was also worse than every Ivy League team (yes, even Dartmouth), four Patriot League teams (Loyola, Lehigh, Navy, BU) and two other Big East teams (Villanova, Denver).

And Rutgers recruiting isn't closing the gap. They have just two combined four-star commits for 2023 and 2024, with none in '24 when you would think they'd get a recruiting boost after making the Final Four. The next closest in the ACC/B1G is Ohio State, with nine. It's also less than every Ivy, six Patriot League schools (Navy, Army, Lehigh, BU, Bucknell, Colgate), five Big East schools (Georgetown, Denver, Villanova, Marquette, Providence) and two A-10 schools (Saint Joseph's, Richmond).

Yes, you still have to develop players and build team chemistry. But when your talent floor is so much lower than your competitors, it makes it harder to sustain the success that Rutgers probably wants. Once the COVID year ends, Rutgers better hope their player development works because you won't be able to to get basically a whole recruiting class worth of players from the transfer portal.

[OSVAlacrosse]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

This gets to the point that the problem for Rutgers isn't necessarily the number of transfers, but what holes the transfers have to fill compared to other schools. With Rutgers recruiting at a lower level than the rest of the ACC, B1G and Ivy they need the transfers to help them catch up to those schools while their competitors can just use transfers to plug a hole or 2 and get them over the top.

I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything, but it's staggering to see the level Rutgers recruits at compared to their peers. I've posted about the blue-chip index on here a few times, which is an idea I took from college football. The theory is to compete for a national championship, you need to be pulling at least 50 percent four or five star players over the last four years. I was able to use Inside Lacrosse's database to create something similar for the last three seasons. All three title teams made the cut, as did 11 of the 12 FInal Four teams from the previous 3 years.

The only one that didn't? Rutgers, and it's not even close. The 2022 team had a blue chip rate of just 17 percent, and last year wasn't much better at 19 percent. The only other ACC and B1G team who didn't hit the Blue Chip mark this year besides Rutgers was Hopkins, who was much closer at 45 percent. Even Georgetown, who has brought in a lot of transfers in the COVID era, has had a Blue Chip rate over 50 percent each of the last three years. Rutgers mark for 2023 was also worse than every Ivy League team (yes, even Dartmouth), four Patriot League teams (Loyola, Lehigh, Navy, BU) and two other Big East teams (Villanova, Denver).

And Rutgers recruiting isn't closing the gap. They have just two combined four-star commits for 2023 and 2024, with none in '24 when you would think they'd get a recruiting boost after making the Final Four. The next closest in the ACC/B1G is Ohio State, with nine. It's also less than every Ivy, six Patriot League schools (Navy, Army, Lehigh, BU, Bucknell, Colgate), five Big East schools (Georgetown, Denver, Villanova, Marquette, Providence) and two A-10 schools (Saint Joseph's, Richmond).

Yes, you still have to develop players and build team chemistry. But when your talent floor is so much lower than your competitors, it makes it harder to sustain the success that Rutgers probably wants. Once the COVID year ends, Rutgers better hope their player development works because you won't be able to to get basically a whole recruiting class worth of players from the transfer portal.

"I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything,"

I am one of those posters who believes that recruiting rankings in lacrosse don't mean anything. That is because there is not a legitimate system for these rankings. You mention you used IL database. The flaw is that some players can pay for these rankings. It is documented on the IL database. The other flaw is that stars are given AFTER a player commits to a top school. The flaw in your Theory about pulling 50% 4-5 star recruits is have you looked at teams that have them and did not do well? Of course the top teams have 4-5 stars. When did they get assigned the stars? Who ranked the players? According to your theory a college coach could log into IL and recruit players with stars? Right now they are looking at the 2025 class. Would this work? Not a whole lot of players with five star ratings in the class right now. All your comments explain is that ND, UVA, Duke, UMD ect.. have recruited a lot of good players and better players than Rutgers. DUHH. Recruiting good players = good results they did not do this through a ranking system but by going to events, speaking with HS and club coaches ect. This is far different from a real/useful/well researched recruiting database that is used in football.

[jff97]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

This gets to the point that the problem for Rutgers isn't necessarily the number of transfers, but what holes the transfers have to fill compared to other schools. With Rutgers recruiting at a lower level than the rest of the ACC, B1G and Ivy they need the transfers to help them catch up to those schools while their competitors can just use transfers to plug a hole or 2 and get them over the top.

I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything, but it's staggering to see the level Rutgers recruits at compared to their peers. I've posted about the blue-chip index on here a few times, which is an idea I took from college football. The theory is to compete for a national championship, you need to be pulling at least 50 percent four or five star players over the last four years. I was able to use Inside Lacrosse's database to create something similar for the last three seasons. All three title teams made the cut, as did 11 of the 12 FInal Four teams from the previous 3 years.

The only one that didn't? Rutgers, and it's not even close. The 2022 team had a blue chip rate of just 17 percent, and last year wasn't much better at 19 percent. The only other ACC and B1G team who didn't hit the Blue Chip mark this year besides Rutgers was Hopkins, who was much closer at 45 percent. Even Georgetown, who has brought in a lot of transfers in the COVID era, has had a Blue Chip rate over 50 percent each of the last three years. Rutgers mark for 2023 was also worse than every Ivy League team (yes, even Dartmouth), four Patriot League teams (Loyola, Lehigh, Navy, BU) and two other Big East teams (Villanova, Denver).

And Rutgers recruiting isn't closing the gap. They have just two combined four-star commits for 2023 and 2024, with none in '24 when you would think they'd get a recruiting boost after making the Final Four. The next closest in the ACC/B1G is Ohio State, with nine. It's also less than every Ivy, six Patriot League schools (Navy, Army, Lehigh, BU, Bucknell, Colgate), five Big East schools (Georgetown, Denver, Villanova, Marquette, Providence) and two A-10 schools (Saint Joseph's, Richmond).

Yes, you still have to develop players and build team chemistry. But when your talent floor is so much lower than your competitors, it makes it harder to sustain the success that Rutgers probably wants. Once the COVID year ends, Rutgers better hope their player development works because you won't be able to to get basically a whole recruiting class worth of players from the transfer portal.

"I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything,"

I am one of those posters who believes that recruiting rankings in lacrosse don't mean anything. That is because there is not a legitimate system for these rankings. You mention you used IL database. The flaw is that some players can pay for these rankings. It is documented on the IL database. The other flaw is that stars are given AFTER a player commits to a top school. The flaw in your Theory about pulling 50% 4-5 star recruits is have you looked at teams that have them and did not do well? Of course the top teams have 4-5 stars. When did they get assigned the stars? Who ranked the players? According to your theory a college coach could log into IL and recruit players with stars? Right now they are looking at the 2025 class. Would this work? Not a whole lot of players with five star ratings in the class right now. All your comments explain is that ND, UVA, Duke, UMD ect.. have recruited a lot of good players and better players than Rutgers. DUHH. Recruiting good players = good results they did not do this through a ranking system but by going to events, speaking with HS and club coaches ect. This is far different from a real/useful/well researched recruiting database that is used in football.

Guessing these questions were rhetorical, but I'll use them to make a few points

"The flaw in your Theory about pulling 50% 4-5 star recruits is have you looked at teams that have them and did not do well?"
For 2023, 16 teams met the Blue Chip Ratio. 10 made the NCAA Tournament six did not. Just like in any sport, recruiting is only part of the equation. You have to coach and develop the talent you have. Here's a link to the football ratio from last year. Some teams on the list did not make a bowl game.
https://247sports.com/longformarticle/b ... 190039196/

When did they get assigned the stars?
The rankings in recent years have come out close to the September 1 contact date. They've released additional rounds of four stars after the initial rankings, but I don't know when the arbitrary stars are decided. As for the top 100, that comes after their senior year. But like in football there are more players who have stars than there are rankings.

"According to your theory a college coach could log into IL and recruit players with stars?"
We're all smart enough to know this isn't how it works. But rankings are done based on intel IL gets from people around the recruiting landscape. Coaches don't look at stars, but it isn't a coincidence that the highest ranked kids usually end up at the best programs. It would be different if the top kids ended up at say, Siena or Cleveland State every year. IL doesn't just throw darts at a wall to see what sticks. As for 2025, they haven't put out rankings yet since that year can't get recruited until Sept. 1.

The database obviously has flaws, as you've pointed out. But I think the methodology is sound as it shows which teams are playing above their recruiting weight. Of course sometimes players don't live up to the hype. No one can predict exactly how 17-19 year old kids are going to perform. But it's pretty prevalent across college sports that you need to recruit at a certain level to win at a certain level.

[JeremyCuse]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

This gets to the point that the problem for Rutgers isn't necessarily the number of transfers, but what holes the transfers have to fill compared to other schools. With Rutgers recruiting at a lower level than the rest of the ACC, B1G and Ivy they need the transfers to help them catch up to those schools while their competitors can just use transfers to plug a hole or 2 and get them over the top.

I know some posters on here love to act like recruiting rankings don't mean anything, but it's staggering to see the level Rutgers recruits at compared to their peers. I've posted about the blue-chip index on here a few times, which is an idea I took from college football. The theory is to compete for a national championship, you need to be pulling at least 50 percent four or five star players over the last four years. I was able to use Inside Lacrosse's database to create something similar for the last three seasons. All three title teams made the cut, as did 11 of the 12 FInal Four teams from the previous 3 years.

The only one that didn't? Rutgers, and it's not even close. The 2022 team had a blue chip rate of just 17 percent, and last year wasn't much better at 19 percent. The only other ACC and B1G team who didn't hit the Blue Chip mark this year besides Rutgers was Hopkins, who was much closer at 45 percent. Even Georgetown, who has brought in a lot of transfers in the COVID era, has had a Blue Chip rate over 50 percent each of the last three years. Rutgers mark for 2023 was also worse than every Ivy League team (yes, even Dartmouth), four Patriot League teams (Loyola, Lehigh, Navy, BU) and two other Big East teams (Villanova, Denver).

And Rutgers recruiting isn't closing the gap. They have just two combined four-star commits for 2023 and 2024, with none in '24 when you would think they'd get a recruiting boost after making the Final Four. The next closest in the ACC/B1G is Ohio State, with nine. It's also less than every Ivy, six Patriot League schools (Navy, Army, Lehigh, BU, Bucknell, Colgate), five Big East schools (Georgetown, Denver, Villanova, Marquette, Providence) and two A-10 schools (Saint Joseph's, Richmond).

Yes, you still have to develop players and build team chemistry. But when your talent floor is so much lower than your competitors, it makes it harder to sustain the success that Rutgers probably wants. Once the COVID year ends, Rutgers better hope their player development works because you won't be able to to get basically a whole recruiting class worth of players from the transfer portal.

This is 100% spot on. While the recruiting rankings are far from gospel and there are plenty of very competitive teams with few 4 and 5 stars, if you want to be a serious threat for a national championship year in and year out you have to be able to recruit at a level where your landing a decent chunk of 4 stars and at least sprinkling in some 5 stars. There are plenty of examples of teams who as I noted are still competitive without said players but are no real threat to reach the final four less win a title. Transfers can help close the gap and fill in for recruiting misses but it's a very difficult strategy to use over the long term and will inevitably back fire a year or 2, I've seen it first hand.

[Turnandrake]

The year Yale won the Natty they had very few 5/4 * recruits I recall. Maybe maybe not

[jff97]

The year Yale won the Natty they had very few 5/4 * recruits I recall. Maybe maybe not

Inside Lacrosse didn't do the star system for all those classes, but Yale did bring in a combined 15 top 100 players in the 2014-2017 classes. Not saying all of them played, but that's still a pretty high level of recruiting.

[DocBarrister]

There are a lot of value judgments being made about Rutgers and Head Coach Brecht. Sure, 11 transfers is eye opening. Certainly not what I would ever want to see Johns Hopkins doing.

But Rutgers is not Johns Hopkins … or the Ivy League … or Notre Dame … or Virginia … or Duke.

I could easily imagine a highly sought-after HS recruit thinking that there are a few dozen Division I schools he would prefer to attend over Rutgers. Rutgers brings in good HS recruiting classes, but it is very unlikely that Rutgers could regularly compete for (much less win) a national championship without major acquisitions through the transfer portal.

Rutgers is clearly in a stronger position in the transfer wars than it is with respect to HS recruiting. First, many schools will not accept many transfer lacrosse players. Other top schools, for example some in the Ivy League, do not accept lacrosse transfers at all (or rarely do). On the other hand, Rutgers under Coach Brecht accepts large transfer classes, and Rutgers probably doesn’t have the same academic hurdles that a Johns Hopkins or Notre Dame does.

If, then, Rutgers is in a relatively stronger competitive position in the transfer market than it is in the HS recruiting pool, why shouldn’t Coach Brecht leverage that strength in the transfer market to make his team more competitive for national championships?

I would even say that Rutgers has virtually no chance of ever winning a national championship without bringing in substantial transfer classes.

In regularly bringing in large, talented transfer classes, Coach Brecht is simply doing his job. Rutgers cannot, and should not, be expected to recruit its talent in the same way as programs that are more competitive for HS recruits.

Enough of the judgmental comments … Brecht is doing what he needs to do at Rutgers.

DocBarrister

[wgdsr]

There are a lot of value judgments being made about Rutgers and Head Coach Brecht. Sure, 11 transfers is eye opening. Certainly not what I would ever want to see Johns Hopkins doing.

But Rutgers is not Johns Hopkins … or the Ivy League … or Notre Dame … or Virginia … or Duke.

I could easily imagine a highly sought-after HS recruit thinking that there are a few dozen Division I schools he would prefer to attend over Rutgers. Rutgers brings in good HS recruiting classes, but it is very unlikely that Rutgers could regularly compete for (much less win) a national championship without major acquisitions through the transfer portal.

Rutgers is clearly in a stronger position in the transfer wars than it is with respect to HS recruiting. First, many schools will not accept many transfer lacrosse players. Other top schools, for example some in the Ivy League, do not accept lacrosse transfers at all (or rarely do). On the other hand, Rutgers under Coach Brecht accepts large transfer classes, and Rutgers probably doesn’t have the same academic hurdles that a Johns Hopkins or Notre Dame does.

If, then, Rutgers is in a relatively stronger competitive position in the transfer market than it is in the HS recruiting pool, why shouldn’t Coach Brecht leverage that strength in the transfer market to make his team more competitive for national championships?

I would even say that Rutgers has virtually no chance of ever winning a national championship without bringing in substantial transfer classes.

In regularly bringing in large, talented transfer classes, Coach Brecht is simply doing his job. Rutgers cannot, and should not, be expected to recruit its talent in the same way as programs that are more competitive for HS recruits.

Enough of the judgmental comments … Brecht is doing what he needs to do at Rutgers.

DocBarrister

so after a bunch of judgmental comments about rutgers, you demand there are no more judgmental posts about rutgers. got it.

there is this: if you told me i could parachute in to any acc/b1g/ivy school in the country and needed to pull 6 top/playable recruits per class out of 3,900 schools to recruit from? + canada? i would take that challenge.

[The Orfling]

I would argue that recruiting rankings were often pretty far off in the early recruiting era, but in the modern recruiting era the "false positive rate" is pretty low (false positive in the sense of a four or five star who, if healthy, does not pan out on the field). You still have to get seen so guys who aren't on the club circuit or playing on national powerhouse squads can certainly still get missed -- the "false negative" scenario.

[1766]

There is no problem. It's an opportunity to amass proven talent. It's job 1 of any program. Get the most talent you can any way you can. ND didn't have an issue winning the NC with transfers and neither did Maryland the year before. We will see who gets more out of their transfers. That's the great thing about sports. SSDM needed to be addressed. The staff is very excited with what they've brought in.

No offense, but I think this is short-sighted way of looking at things. Every coach needs to balance what is best for this season (the short-term) and what is best for the program (the long term). It is not always going to be the same percentage. Taking a heavy portal class is going to impact your younger players and potentially your ability to recruit. If you are on the precipice of a NC, I get going all in on the portal, like I said earlier it is about the average portal takes. If you are taking large portal numbers and not making the tournament, the long-term outlook is not going to be good.

The staff is very excited about the hs recruits they have coming in. You are likely to see at least a couple of them play very early. The highest ranked recruit Brecht has ever gotten is in this class.

Brecht has made the tournament 2 out of the last 3 year and went 8-6 in the year he didn't. That includes making the final four and quarterfinal. So with three portal classes he's made the tournament twice. It's nice to see the publicity that the program is getting around their talent acquisition strategy but I can tell you some here seem a lot more concerned about it than people in the program.

[1766]

ND only brought in like 4 guys and two of them were D1 All-Americans and national champs and the others were Simmons from UVA (also a national champ) and Chris Conlin. They were difference makers.

Maryland was largely the same. Donville and Khan were elite players from good programs.

There's a huge difference between adding 3-5 guys to push you over the edge and bringing in a dozen dudes off the discount rack to wholesale replace entire positional units. There's no comparison.

You're just a guy on a message board who is always grinding axes. The guy who makes his living doing this is very excited about these acquisitions. We will see who is right. I know where I'd my money.

And no, ND doesn't win the championship without those transfers. They more than "put them over the edge". Just like Hopkins doesn't make the tournament without the transfers they got.