Top 8 Lacrosse Myths of Today

Posted on April 11, 2012 by

Categories: Economy/Lax Business, Training

8. “The bounce shot is the best shot you can take”
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard this told to youth players – and it makes me cringe. Yes, in youth lacrosse, a bounce shot is tough for a goalkeeper to stop, and it is and always will be the most fundamental shot in the game. Also, a well placed high bouncer is almost impossible to stop at any level. However, as Salisbury coach Jim Berkman (only coach with 400 wins) pointed out at the US Lacrosse Convention several years ago, it is imperative to coach your players to shoot for the open net, and shoot in the air. “In the air” does not mean “high”, but instead that the ball hits net before it hits ground. A bounce shot is unpredictable, especially on grass, and also gives the goalie a few extra fractions of a second to stop the ball. Shoot it where the goalie ain’t.
Lesson: Coach your players to see net, hit net. Find the open spot on the goal and shoot the ball there (ideally changing the plane) instead of trying to trick the goalie with a bounce shot. Once the idea of hitting the open spot is instilled, then you can work on how to bounce it there – adding to your shooting repertoire.

7. Tie: “You have to be able to play with both hands/ It is okay to play one-handed”
I’m not sure which one is worse – the idea that you won’t survive with your dominant hand alone, or that you can survive without your off-hand. The infiltration of Canadian/indoor players to the field game has surely proved that with the right upbringing and lax education, it is not only possible, but sometimes downright advantageous to be a one-handed Canadian. But it would be foolish to teach our mini-laxers that they should only play one handed. On the other hand, there is no good answer when they ask “how come he only plays with his right hand?”
Lesson: Even the good two-handed players are taught to try and get to their dominant hand. Ultimately, pay attention to what player is capable of what. If the player is athletic enough to use his dominant hand, let him – but also let him know that it would be beneficial to be able to use his off hand as well. Again, building the repertoire.

6. “Just stick your worst athlete between the pipes”
This is another one I see at the youth level a lot. Coaches will often take the slowest kid, and make him the goalie. If you pay attention to the higher levels of the game, goalies are not only good athletes, but often are some of the best athletes on the team if not the best. When you think about what it requires to be a good goalie, it’s no surprise. So why at a young age would we treat the position otherwise?
Lesson: It’s a risk/reward decision at the youth level. Sometimes it requires taking one of your better players from the field and giving him the big stick. But if he stops everything that comes at him, it will most likely be worth it. Also worth considering is which kid is willing to sacrifice his body every day.

5. “You don’t need whip”
This is often a hot topic of debate amongst different styles of coach. The more traditional style is little or no whip, straight overhand shooting, etc. Coaches have certainly been successful with this (Bordley – Landon, Starsia – UVA). You can also see coaches support newer styles of play that include whip and more creative styles of play (Danowski – Duke, Desko – Syracuse). My overall opinion is that with the talent of longpoles and goalies in today’s game, at least a little bit of whip is required. Not to imply that ‘whip’ is the same as ‘hold’, but they usually go hand in hand. More whip will usually add more hold to your stick, so that the pole can’t easily take the ball. Additionally, more whip will undoubtedly add velocity to your shot, allowing you to beat the talented goalies of today.
Lesson: Start with no whip, and gradually add a little every time you restring a stick (you can always take it out if it’s too much). Keep adding until it is definitely too much. Players will most often notice that they can do things with a stick that they previously couldn’t because of the added whip – especially in shooting. Other players will have to sacrifice the harder shot to be able to feed accurately and consistently. It’s all a personal preference, but the days of nobody playing with whip are over.

4. “Box lacrosse doesn’t help”
As mentioned before, Canadians are proving the value of the indoor game and how it translates to the field (Delby Powless, Mark Matthews, many others) Stick protection, shooting accuracy, poise in tight places, creativity, etc. In my opinion every player coming up should find time in the offseason to play in a box league. The benefits are proven, and what’s the downside? Players will be picking up their stick (which is sometimes a challenge), and specifically defenders will improve their sometimes lacking stick skills.
Lesson: Find a true “box” league in your area. Many offseason leagues have moved inside to facilities with smaller fields, but play on turf with real sized goals. Make sure the league plays box rules, no longpoles, etc. The improved abilities of your players will make the investment worth it.

3. “The best lacrosse is played in Divison I”
This is true, but only to a certain extent. The best lax is played at the highest level of Division I, and even then often the games are not as good as some found at the D2 and D3 levels. It’s not a knock on Division I, or even an attempt to inflate the D3 ego. It’s a simple matter of math. The game has grown so fast, and colleges haven’t kept up at the D1 level. There are now more and more great players who 20 years ago would have been at Hopkins, but now they are playing at Salisbury, Stevenson, or Tufts. Enough said I think.
Lesson: Make time to go see a rivalry game in D3. Could be “War on the Shore”, or usually any matchup in the ODAC or NESCAC. You will find the level of play and pace of the game are very high, and the intensity often times is unmatched except on Memorial Day weekend.

2. “Lacrosse is still the fastest sport on two feet”
This is not really a myth so much as it is a false sense of security. As an unsolicited advocate for the game, I still get excited when lax makes it onto ESPN and try to get my non-laxing friends to watch. With the slowed pace and overcoaching of today’s lacrosse powerhouses, those friends lose interest quickly when watching on TV. It is one thing for them to be confused when the game is moving so fast that they just don’t understand. That’s what we used to pride ourselves on. But now I hear people asking why they are just passing the ball in a circle. And why on earth would you stall in the 1st quarter?
Lesson: I understand the formula for winning sometimes involves a slower pace, but the sport is in danger of losing its appeal if it doesn’t keep its pace. Pace alone is what has drawn so many newcomers to the sport. Where did the baseball vs. lacrosse rivalry come from? Football players that decided for a fast, hard-hitting spring activity instead of the slow pace of baseball. The day lacrosse is comfortable with its title as “the fastest” is the day we will lose our growth potential. Unless you like watching the softball that’s played on ESPNU after every lax game…

1. “The offense has such an advantage now”
Full disclosure: I am biased as I was an offensive player, but I must strongly disagree. If defenders played the way they did in the 80’s, sure it would be unfair. But that’s not the case. The game has become so physical that crosschecking is essentially no longer a penalty. The improvement of longpoles (and SSM’s) forced offensive players to adapt to the harder slap checks, longer holds, and painful crosschecks. We did it by learning new ways to string so that the ball wouldn’t fly out every time we got jacked in the back by a titanium shaft. If the offense has such an advantage, then why has average scoring in college games not skyrocketed?
Lesson: If you want to change stick rules and add shot clocks, fine. But if you ask me you also need to crack down on slashing and crosschecking. Once you do, the pace of the game will speed up, and play will return to what it used to be, with precise and clean checks (Pietramala). Otherwise we’re just going from an offensive advantage to a defensive one, and like I said before, the pace (offense) is what sells tickets. Ask the NFL.

I’m a former college player with over 100 points in my college career. I recently moved to Austin, TX, and have been working with texasheatlacrosse.com. I am expanding my role with them soon but as of now I am writing some opinion pieces as well as game coverage. My ultimate goal is to be able to support myself by writing about the game of lacrosse.

Related Posts:

  • Anymouse

    Unless you played in the ’80s you probably should not draw comparisons.  Would love to see a player with a superlite II make it today.

  • Anymouse

    Unless you played in the ’80s you probably should not draw comparisons.  Would love to see a player with a superlite II make it today.

  • Guest

    #3 is simply ridiculous. How is this a myth? While the talent level has certainly increased across the board, this fact is not unique to lacrosse – it is true of virtually every sport – athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, etc. The best players of a few decades ago could not compete in today’s market, generally speaking – as is true in other sports. But the best players of the current lot are still going to go to Division I, regardless of widespread increases in talent or increased player pools. Division III offers no athletic scholarships! Follow the money. The talent disparity will only increase as the sport opens up to larger demographics and extends beyond the northeast bubble of folks that can afford to pay for a good education alone. Whether a game is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a matter of opinion and anyone can witness a great game played by less than stellar players. There are plenty of bad NFL games, does this then mean they aren’t the best players at their sport? Is this then not the best football? Come on…

  • Guest

    #3 is simply ridiculous. How is this a myth? While the talent level has certainly increased across the board, this fact is not unique to lacrosse – it is true of virtually every sport – athletes get bigger, stronger, faster, smarter, etc. The best players of a few decades ago could not compete in today’s market, generally speaking – as is true in other sports. But the best players of the current lot are still going to go to Division I, regardless of widespread increases in talent or increased player pools. Division III offers no athletic scholarships! Follow the money. The talent disparity will only increase as the sport opens up to larger demographics and extends beyond the northeast bubble of folks that can afford to pay for a good education alone. Whether a game is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ is a matter of opinion and anyone can witness a great game played by less than stellar players. There are plenty of bad NFL games, does this then mean they aren’t the best players at their sport? Is this then not the best football? Come on…

  • vanilla fudge

    #8 if the bounce shot is unpredictable, especially on grass..how does the goalie have more time to think about it? hmmm i think i’ll keep shooting it on the ground on grass. turf is a different story. #6  niko amato isnt an athlete, jesse schwartzmen isnt an athlete, chris dougherty isnt an athlete, and mark manos definitely isnt an athlete…they are all fat and slow, yet they are still great goalies. #5 whip doesnt matter, accuracy matters. nuff said. #3 unmatched except on memorial day weekend, stop trying to inflate D3 cuz you couldnt go D1..there is no better talent than D1. #2 if lacrosse isnt the fastest game on 2 feet, what is? terrible point on your part. #1 the offense has and will always have the advantage. the defense doesnt know what they’re doing you idiot. sean brown this is a terrible article..heres a myth, you’re a good writer.

    • Laxing-All-Day

      #6 Being an athlete doesn’t always mean being the fastest guy on the field. Can YOU stop 70% of all 95 MPH shots?? #5 If whip doesn’t matter explain Mark Mathews, or Steven Keogh. #3 Have you actually ever watched a high end D2 or D3 game compared to a low end D1 team? The talent is very comparable. #2 Do you think that lacrosse is going to stay the Fastest Game on two feet if teams start stalling the ball on the first possession of the game? #1 If offense will ALWAYS have the advantage, how is it that teams like Notre Dame or even Johns Hopkins at times, wins gamea solely with their defense? If Offense always has the advantage then how is it that some the best offensive power houses or put to sleep by defensive teams like Johns Hopkins? Sean Brown Knows what he’s talking about. Thanks for this informative article!

    • Laxing-All-Day

      #6 Being an athlete doesn’t always mean being the fastest guy on the field. Can YOU stop 70% of all 95 MPH shots?? #5 If whip doesn’t matter explain Mark Mathews, or Steven Keogh. #3 Have you actually ever watched a high end D2 or D3 game compared to a low end D1 team? The talent is very comparable. #2 Do you think that lacrosse is going to stay the Fastest Game on two feet if teams start stalling the ball on the first possession of the game? #1 If offense will ALWAYS have the advantage, how is it that teams like Notre Dame or even Johns Hopkins at times, wins gamea solely with their defense? If Offense always has the advantage then how is it that some the best offensive power houses or put to sleep by defensive teams like Johns Hopkins? Sean Brown Knows what he’s talking about. Thanks for this informative article!

      • Lax Stringer

        If you read how Mark Matthews stings his stick (a recent article on insidelacrosse.com), you will learn that Mark Matthews has very little whip. He strings sticks for all his DU teammates, and they all are shocked how little whip there is in his pockets. So how do you “explain Mark Matthews”. Refer to your point #4– box lacrosse skills.

    • lickwax

      Niko Amato has some of the fastest feet i have ever seen in person. Doc had really fast hands and reflexes. THats just as much of being an athlete as a 40 time is.Mark Matthew’s has no whip in his stick. He is just really strong. Kyle Wharton had crazy whip, yet could hit either corner on command. Why because he practiced. When he played at Haverford he would get to school early and shoot for an hour. The bounce shot is not always the best shot. The offense does not always have the advantage. Look at Notre Dame vs Cornell a few years ago. Cornell could not figure out how to beat ND’s defense. ND’s offense was not overpowering by any means. Have you ever seen Rugby sevens? Its way faster then Lacrosse. Vanilla Fudge before you comment at least know what you are talking about.

      • vanilla fudge

         ha trust me, i know more about lacrosse than you can dream of knowing

        • Mtfootball95

          What makes you so qualified to be the be all and end all on lacrosse Mr. Fudge, if you don’t mind me asking?

        • Mtfootball95

          What makes you so qualified to be the be all and end all on lacrosse Mr. Fudge, if you don’t mind me asking?

      • vanilla fudge

         ha trust me, i know more about lacrosse than you can dream of knowing

    • Johnxyx

      Hurling is a faster sport. And it is played on two feet with a stick and everything.

      The point about the goalie is to not put the worst athletes directly in the goal as this will not help them win out the individual in goal with playing the sport for a long time. My advise is start them at attack. (I’m an attack player). This way if they loser the ball it is not a goal against you…goalie our defence lose the ball…

      I have played with lower level D1 players and also some amazing D3 players its not totally crazy to think that some match ups at D3 will be better than at D1.

  • vanilla fudge

    #8 if the bounce shot is unpredictable, especially on grass..how does the goalie have more time to think about it? hmmm i think i’ll keep shooting it on the ground on grass. turf is a different story. #6  niko amato isnt an athlete, jesse schwartzmen isnt an athlete, chris dougherty isnt an athlete, and mark manos definitely isnt an athlete…they are all fat and slow, yet they are still great goalies. #5 whip doesnt matter, accuracy matters. nuff said. #3 unmatched except on memorial day weekend, stop trying to inflate D3 cuz you couldnt go D1..there is no better talent than D1. #2 if lacrosse isnt the fastest game on 2 feet, what is? terrible point on your part. #1 the offense has and will always have the advantage. the defense doesnt know what they’re doing you idiot. sean brown this is a terrible article..heres a myth, you’re a good writer.

  • Robert Ford

    I agree with alot of this to be honest playing guys from stevenson and salisbury is just as hard as playing the guys from towson and delaware, now im just making comparisons from playing them in summer ball but they all take it the same way i dunno some players dont look to go d1 just a fact of life

  • Robert Ford

    I agree with alot of this to be honest playing guys from stevenson and salisbury is just as hard as playing the guys from towson and delaware, now im just making comparisons from playing them in summer ball but they all take it the same way i dunno some players dont look to go d1 just a fact of life

  • Robert Ford

    A big myth I see alot is parents and coaches acting like only the kid scoring the goal should be celebrated, the guys creating the play and getting the assists should be brought up as well. Not emphasizing it leads to kids always driving to the goal no matter the matchup 

  • Robert Ford

    A big myth I see alot is parents and coaches acting like only the kid scoring the goal should be celebrated, the guys creating the play and getting the assists should be brought up as well. Not emphasizing it leads to kids always driving to the goal no matter the matchup 

    • Guest

      And in what sport is the gentleman scoring the goal, earning the point, catching the touchdown pass, etc. not celebrated disproportionately to the other members of a team? There’s no sense in sheltering our youth from the realities of these sports at all levels, including the professional ranks. There will always be roles. Now if your kid isn’t a team player or the coaches promote selfish play, well, that’s a different story… 

    • Guest

      And in what sport is the gentleman scoring the goal, earning the point, catching the touchdown pass, etc. not celebrated disproportionately to the other members of a team? There’s no sense in sheltering our youth from the realities of these sports at all levels, including the professional ranks. There will always be roles. Now if your kid isn’t a team player or the coaches promote selfish play, well, that’s a different story… 

  • Mr Jrbrown

    Commenters need to chill out, this article is clearly the opinion of the author and not a statement of fact. That being said, the game is changing and some folks just need to get over that. Why would anyone play with a superlite in today’s game with the stick technology available now. What did the old guys who preferred woodies say about you when you started playing with a plastic head. The bounce shot is luck, especially if you are relying on the unpredictability of the bounce it takes. Yes, it can be effective, but a player needs more than the bounce shot in his arsenal to beat today’s goalies. With many programs switching over to turf fields, players need to see net, hit net. As the game grows, yes, the disparity of talent with grow as well. But you are assuming all the new players to the game will suck, where will all the new great players go to school because I don’t see D1 schools adding programs that quickly. There will still only be 60ish D1 programs so a lot of the new talent from Cali, Texas, etc will be going D3 just to get a chance to play. D3 lax might get real good real fast.

  • Mr Jrbrown

    Commenters need to chill out, this article is clearly the opinion of the author and not a statement of fact. That being said, the game is changing and some folks just need to get over that. Why would anyone play with a superlite in today’s game with the stick technology available now. What did the old guys who preferred woodies say about you when you started playing with a plastic head. The bounce shot is luck, especially if you are relying on the unpredictability of the bounce it takes. Yes, it can be effective, but a player needs more than the bounce shot in his arsenal to beat today’s goalies. With many programs switching over to turf fields, players need to see net, hit net. As the game grows, yes, the disparity of talent with grow as well. But you are assuming all the new players to the game will suck, where will all the new great players go to school because I don’t see D1 schools adding programs that quickly. There will still only be 60ish D1 programs so a lot of the new talent from Cali, Texas, etc will be going D3 just to get a chance to play. D3 lax might get real good real fast.

    • Guest

      You and the author are missing the underlying point with the comparison between divisions. In any other sport, no one would compare Division I to Division III. Doing so would be laughable, especially in football, basketball, baseball, or soccer. The reason is very simple. As a sport grows, access expands, and demand increases. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of prospective NCAA athletes cannot afford tuition at their desired school – especially the expensive, often private, schools that litter D3. Hence, athletic scholarships. Without scholarships, you lose out on talent. Pretty simple. There will be more D1 programs in the future. But what makes you think these new players from CA, TX, or anywhere else would go to a D3 program – just for a chance to play? For a dead-end sport, ~$200 grand in education is a steep price for the simple ‘chance to play’. No one is assuming new players would suck, you, and the author assume, wrongly, that new players can afford to ‘pay to play’ as a general, sustainable status of the sport. The gap between D1 and D3 will only widen in future years as has been the case in other sports.

      • Guest

        A couple of things wrong with this argument:

        1 is that you’re treating lacrosse scholarships as full scholarships. That is a falsehood. In lacrosse even the best programs are splitting only a handful of full scholarships amongst their players. So they are still paying to go to some of the most expensive schools in the country, just not as much.
        2 is that you are overlooking the academic grants that are often handed out at those D3 schools just like regular scholarships. They are just not termed “scholarship”. Often a player can go to a very expensive school for pretty cheap if the coach has the right pull.
        3 is that if you are a good player from CA or TX, or anywhere else, let’s say you’re good enough to play at Siena, but not good enough for Duke. Instead you have the choice to play at Salisbury. This is the decision many players are facing nowadays because it’s not worth a partial scholarship at Siena (not picking on them, good school, good team) if you don’t want to live in the cold and get beat by Hopkins every year. Instead, you can choose to go to SSU, a state school (so relatively cheap), and compete for a national championship every year. As of right now, there are just a lot of good options for players that aren’t at the top tier of the game (Duke, UVA, Hop, etc). The point is not that Division I does not hold the best teams and players. The point is that there is a ton of other good lacrosse elsewhere. To think otherwise is quite narrow-minded.
        4 you are correct in thinking that once lacrosse does have the money, the gap will widen as it has in other sports. We are just not there right now. Mainly because of Title IX.

      • Guest

        A couple of things wrong with this argument:

        1 is that you’re treating lacrosse scholarships as full scholarships. That is a falsehood. In lacrosse even the best programs are splitting only a handful of full scholarships amongst their players. So they are still paying to go to some of the most expensive schools in the country, just not as much.
        2 is that you are overlooking the academic grants that are often handed out at those D3 schools just like regular scholarships. They are just not termed “scholarship”. Often a player can go to a very expensive school for pretty cheap if the coach has the right pull.
        3 is that if you are a good player from CA or TX, or anywhere else, let’s say you’re good enough to play at Siena, but not good enough for Duke. Instead you have the choice to play at Salisbury. This is the decision many players are facing nowadays because it’s not worth a partial scholarship at Siena (not picking on them, good school, good team) if you don’t want to live in the cold and get beat by Hopkins every year. Instead, you can choose to go to SSU, a state school (so relatively cheap), and compete for a national championship every year. As of right now, there are just a lot of good options for players that aren’t at the top tier of the game (Duke, UVA, Hop, etc). The point is not that Division I does not hold the best teams and players. The point is that there is a ton of other good lacrosse elsewhere. To think otherwise is quite narrow-minded.
        4 you are correct in thinking that once lacrosse does have the money, the gap will widen as it has in other sports. We are just not there right now. Mainly because of Title IX.

      • Guest

        A couple of things wrong with this argument:

        1 is that you’re treating lacrosse scholarships as full scholarships. That is a falsehood. In lacrosse even the best programs are splitting only a handful of full scholarships amongst their players. So they are still paying to go to some of the most expensive schools in the country, just not as much.
        2 is that you are overlooking the academic grants that are often handed out at those D3 schools just like regular scholarships. They are just not termed “scholarship”. Often a player can go to a very expensive school for pretty cheap if the coach has the right pull.
        3 is that if you are a good player from CA or TX, or anywhere else, let’s say you’re good enough to play at Siena, but not good enough for Duke. Instead you have the choice to play at Salisbury. This is the decision many players are facing nowadays because it’s not worth a partial scholarship at Siena (not picking on them, good school, good team) if you don’t want to live in the cold and get beat by Hopkins every year. Instead, you can choose to go to SSU, a state school (so relatively cheap), and compete for a national championship every year. As of right now, there are just a lot of good options for players that aren’t at the top tier of the game (Duke, UVA, Hop, etc). The point is not that Division I does not hold the best teams and players. The point is that there is a ton of other good lacrosse elsewhere. To think otherwise is quite narrow-minded.
        4 you are correct in thinking that once lacrosse does have the money, the gap will widen as it has in other sports. We are just not there right now. Mainly because of Title IX.

      • Guest

        A couple of things wrong with this argument:

        1 is that you’re treating lacrosse scholarships as full scholarships. That is a falsehood. In lacrosse even the best programs are splitting only a handful of full scholarships amongst their players. So they are still paying to go to some of the most expensive schools in the country, just not as much.
        2 is that you are overlooking the academic grants that are often handed out at those D3 schools just like regular scholarships. They are just not termed “scholarship”. Often a player can go to a very expensive school for pretty cheap if the coach has the right pull.
        3 is that if you are a good player from CA or TX, or anywhere else, let’s say you’re good enough to play at Siena, but not good enough for Duke. Instead you have the choice to play at Salisbury. This is the decision many players are facing nowadays because it’s not worth a partial scholarship at Siena (not picking on them, good school, good team) if you don’t want to live in the cold and get beat by Hopkins every year. Instead, you can choose to go to SSU, a state school (so relatively cheap), and compete for a national championship every year. As of right now, there are just a lot of good options for players that aren’t at the top tier of the game (Duke, UVA, Hop, etc). The point is not that Division I does not hold the best teams and players. The point is that there is a ton of other good lacrosse elsewhere. To think otherwise is quite narrow-minded.
        4 you are correct in thinking that once lacrosse does have the money, the gap will widen as it has in other sports. We are just not there right now. Mainly because of Title IX.

    • Guest

      You and the author are missing the underlying point with the comparison between divisions. In any other sport, no one would compare Division I to Division III. Doing so would be laughable, especially in football, basketball, baseball, or soccer. The reason is very simple. As a sport grows, access expands, and demand increases. The simple fact is the overwhelming majority of prospective NCAA athletes cannot afford tuition at their desired school – especially the expensive, often private, schools that litter D3. Hence, athletic scholarships. Without scholarships, you lose out on talent. Pretty simple. There will be more D1 programs in the future. But what makes you think these new players from CA, TX, or anywhere else would go to a D3 program – just for a chance to play? For a dead-end sport, ~$200 grand in education is a steep price for the simple ‘chance to play’. No one is assuming new players would suck, you, and the author assume, wrongly, that new players can afford to ‘pay to play’ as a general, sustainable status of the sport. The gap between D1 and D3 will only widen in future years as has been the case in other sports.

  • Mr Jrbrown

    Commenters need to chill out, this article is clearly the opinion of the author and not a statement of fact. That being said, the game is changing and some folks just need to get over that. Why would anyone play with a superlite in today’s game with the stick technology available now. What did the old guys who preferred woodies say about you when you started playing with a plastic head. The bounce shot is luck, especially if you are relying on the unpredictability of the bounce it takes. Yes, it can be effective, but a player needs more than the bounce shot in his arsenal to beat today’s goalies. With many programs switching over to turf fields, players need to see net, hit net. As the game grows, yes, the disparity of talent with grow as well. But you are assuming all the new players to the game will suck, where will all the new great players go to school because I don’t see D1 schools adding programs that quickly. There will still only be 60ish D1 programs so a lot of the new talent from Cali, Texas, etc will be going D3 just to get a chance to play. D3 lax might get real good real fast.

  • Kev

    The guy who wrote this is obviously that guy t practice who complained about getting checked every day.

  • Kev

    The guy who wrote this is obviously that guy t practice who complained about getting checked every day.

  • Kev

    The guy who wrote this is obviously that guy t practice who complained about getting checked every day.

  • Kev

    The guy who wrote this is obviously that guy t practice who complained about getting checked every day.

  • Snipershow

    Division 1 Lacrosse is still the best lacrosse out there. In the fall/preseason low level division 1 teams will play d2 and d3 teams and CRUSH them. period. you making that statement shows you were probably a club player or have done very little research in writing this post.

  • swaggydubz

    #8 @765e29cce355536330ce206e96ad77f8:disqus  you clearly have never played against high caliber collegiate goalies to think the bounce shot works… that’s laughable. And you can tell by watching any NCAA game D1,2,or 3, no one shoots for the ground, and it does give goalies any extra look at the ball… good ones hop forward and eat that s*** up. #7 I somewhat disagree with Sean on this one. To be a great versatile player you need both hands, yes there are a lot of one-handed players now dominating the sport but they are primarily Canadians (who grew up in the box and have perfected their use of one-hand) or lefty attackman who can shoot the s*** outta the ball. My point, one-handed players can be solid role-players but to be an all-time great you gotta go both hands. #6 & #1… two words, TILLMAN JOHNSON. Anybody remember D1 national championship in 2003? TJ stood on his head and changed the game… the power of defense AND an absurdly athletic goalie. #5 totally depends on your game, how you carry and how often you carry the ball, where you prefer to shoot from etc… beauty of lax is your stick is your own personal weapon. #4 we should absolutely be promoting more BOX in the U.S. increases your stick skills tenfold and allows kids at younger age to get more touches instead picking daisies on the other side of the midfield line waiting for the ball to come back. #3 Contentious issue– one of the guests said it well at the bottom. if you have the opportunity to play at a lower-level D1 that is not as good academically as a high caliber D3 you might choose D3 over D1. they do offer “academic scholarships” that aren’t quite merited and D1 schools dice theirs up all the time. In general though, D1 teams are more talented and always deeper, HOWEVER, there are absolutely D3 and D2 players capable of being starters at the D1 level… nuff said.
     

    • Guest

      Swaggydubz, I agree with everything except for one thing: While you are correct that the one-handed Canadians are primarily role players, I know of two all-time greats that are absolutely one handed players by the name of Gait and Grant Jr.

    • Guest

      Swaggydubz, I agree with everything except for one thing: While you are correct that the one-handed Canadians are primarily role players, I know of two all-time greats that are absolutely one handed players by the name of Gait and Grant Jr.

  • swaggydubz

    #8 @765e29cce355536330ce206e96ad77f8:disqus  you clearly have never played against high caliber collegiate goalies to think the bounce shot works… that’s laughable. And you can tell by watching any NCAA game D1,2,or 3, no one shoots for the ground, and it does give goalies any extra look at the ball… good ones hop forward and eat that s*** up. #7 I somewhat disagree with Sean on this one. To be a great versatile player you need both hands, yes there are a lot of one-handed players now dominating the sport but they are primarily Canadians (who grew up in the box and have perfected their use of one-hand) or lefty attackman who can shoot the s*** outta the ball. My point, one-handed players can be solid role-players but to be an all-time great you gotta go both hands. #6 & #1… two words, TILLMAN JOHNSON. Anybody remember D1 national championship in 2003? TJ stood on his head and changed the game… the power of defense AND an absurdly athletic goalie. #5 totally depends on your game, how you carry and how often you carry the ball, where you prefer to shoot from etc… beauty of lax is your stick is your own personal weapon. #4 we should absolutely be promoting more BOX in the U.S. increases your stick skills tenfold and allows kids at younger age to get more touches instead picking daisies on the other side of the midfield line waiting for the ball to come back. #3 Contentious issue– one of the guests said it well at the bottom. if you have the opportunity to play at a lower-level D1 that is not as good academically as a high caliber D3 you might choose D3 over D1. they do offer “academic scholarships” that aren’t quite merited and D1 schools dice theirs up all the time. In general though, D1 teams are more talented and always deeper, HOWEVER, there are absolutely D3 and D2 players capable of being starters at the D1 level… nuff said.