Lax Recruiting - What explains the huge discrepancy between rankings & results?

[cyrock3]

This is something that’s been bugging me for a while.

Using Rutgers as an example - If we go by recruiting rankings for high school recruits, then a lot of the time we finish last in the B1G and it isn’t close. Theoretically speaking, transfers should not be able to fill that gap. Yet, we haven’t been anywhere close to finishing last in the B1G in lacrosse at all. And I know this isn’t just a Rutgers thing - if recruiting rankings were all that, then schools like Hopkins & Cuse would be doing much better than they have been the past few years.

I remember there being a lot of arguments that because lax recruiting cycles tend to finish up really early that a lot of talented recruits fall through the cracks. Another argument I’ve heard is that there are more good players out there than there are teams so it’s lead to increased parity and flattened the curve (i.e. the difference between a 5 & 3 star is not that massive).

Are both of those items still the case (or were they ever the case)? Or could it just be that recruiting rankings in lacrosse just don’t properly cover all the talent out there?

 

[Caliknight]

Recruiting rankings are a joke. It’s some guy sitting in Baltimore trying to rank a thousand kids most of whom he’s seen very little of.

There are a couple of can’t miss kids and that’s it.

 

[mdk01]

I think the ratings of Maryland and Long Island kids are probably a little inflated but pretty accurate. New Jersey, Upstate, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are reasonable. But the farther you get from the East Coast the sketchier they get. A Baltimore or Syracuse sportswriter might not even seen a recruit from Oregon, and probably downgrades them because their not from a lax power region.

And of course you get the late bloomers.

 

[Caliknight]

Hopkins has a class full of 4 and 5 star players. When we played them, you tell me who was bigger faster and stronger. Almost all of those kids are rated higher than ours. Yet we have more talent. The NFL spends tens of millions
on this and can’t get it right.

Lacrosse has a ways to go. There just isn’t enough resources dedicated to it. They try, it’s just not feasible to be accurate with the lack of people and resources doing it. I’d trust the coaching staff more. They know what they are seeing. They also have a very specific player in mind. A team like Hopkins wants systems guys. Brecht wants athletes.

 

[Golfer2019]

Recruiting rankings are a joke. It’s some guy sitting in Baltimore trying to rank a thousand kids most of whom he’s seen very little of.

There are a couple of can’t miss kids and that’s it.

This

Outside maybe the top 10-20 guys, the next 150 are almost interchangeable.

Of course you have exceptions, but the difference between a kid ranked 50 and a kid ranked 125 is razor thin IMO

 

[rufamily]

This is something that’s been bugging me for a while.

Using Rutgers as an example - If we go by recruiting rankings for high school recruits, then a lot of the time we finish last in the B1G and it isn’t close. Theoretically speaking, transfers should not be able to fill that gap. Yet, we haven’t been anywhere close to finishing last in the B1G in lacrosse at all. And I know this isn’t just a Rutgers thing - if recruiting rankings were all that, then schools like Hopkins & Cuse would be doing much better than they have been the past few years.

I remember there being a lot of arguments that because lax recruiting cycles tend to finish up really early that a lot of talented recruits fall through the cracks. Another argument I’ve heard is that there are more good players out there than there are teams so it’s lead to increased parity and flattened the curve (i.e. the difference between a 5 & 3 star is not that massive).

Are both of those items still the case (or were they ever the case)? Or could it just be that recruiting rankings in lacrosse just don’t properly cover all the talent out there?

Rakings are done generally by only a few guys and one of them was literally, taking money to rank kids. I feel like NJ kids are generally under ranked or miss ranked. I mean the best freshman in the country this past year was CJ Kirst and he was a top ten kid. But Knobloch was completely missed (not by me as I knew he would be good) I think the west coast is tough because, like I said you get one guy or a very small group of guys these evals and they may only see the kid once. Far too many kids simply do not get ranked or do not get ranked reasonably.
Recruiting rankings are also in part based on who is recruiting them, with kids getting recruited by the ACC generally receiving higher rankings.
To put it simply there are far too many kids playing and not nearly enough people doing any type of real evaluations and then people taking these evaluations taken seriously.

 

[Jimpeg]

majority of kids need to go to camps to get rated and recruited...alot of lax kids play multi-sports and do not camp as much....as noted above, not a lot of independent recruiting for the sport except at club level and reputation of club with level of tournamentns ..

 

[Caliknight]

majority of kids need to go to camps to get rated and recruited...alot of lax kids play multi-sports and do not camp as much....as noted above, not a lot of independent recruiting for the sport except at club level and reputation of club with level of tournamentns ..

To that point, our staff really really loves kids who play multiple sports. That's a different mindset stylistically from some other schools who want those system type kids. Those are the one's who seem to play lacrosse year round. I believe their ceiling is lower.

Brian has told me that he would take an athlete over any of those type of kids. He can teach them the game of lacrosse. If we continue on this trajectory, it's going to be very interesting to see what this program looks like in 5 years and the type of athletes in it. It's been amazing to see the physical development just over the last few years.

I'm 6'2" and there weren't a lot of kids bigger than me on the roster 5 years ago. Now it seems like almost the entire team is. Even the one's who are shorter are jacked. Some big fast kids out there now.

 

[CERU00]

My son played against one of our recruits (Archmere Academy in DE), Conor Udovich (LSM). Although my son's team didn't present much competition (my son had lone goal for his team) I can tell you Udovich looked the part . He's 6'3, had wheels, scooped ground balls effortlessly and just looked like a man amongst boys. He's also a wide receiver on a pretty good football team. He is unranked on IL.

 

[Caliknight]

Exact type of kid who excels in our program. Doesn't hurt his father was a pretty good football player at RU.

 

[jreinsdorf]

To that point, our staff really really loves kids who play multiple sports. That's a different mindset stylistically from some other schools who want those system type kids. Those are the one's who seem to play lacrosse year round. I believe their ceiling is lower.

Brian has told me that he would take an athlete over any of those type of kids. He can teach them the game of lacrosse. If we continue on this trajectory, it's going to be very interesting to see what this program looks like in 5 years and the type of athletes in it. It's been amazing to see the physical development just over the last few years.

I'm 6'2" and there weren't a lot of kids bigger than me on the roster 5 years ago. Now it seems like almost the entire team is. Even the one's who are shorter are jacked. Some big fast kids out there now.

I know my sons club is making a huge investment in S and C. The HC told me plainly that you aren’t getting looked at by colleges unless you know your way around the weight room now