Intro To Lacrosse, Part II: How Michigan's Roster Stacks Up

Submitted by Brooks on

HelmetBeauty-200x300

(photo courtesy of mgobluelacrosse.com)

It’s time for Part II of my Introduction to Lacrosse Recruiting.  In this section, I will compare Michigan’s roster to some of the top programs in Division 1 Lacrosse.

Before we get into Michigan’s roster, I will explain the data that I tried to track with all of the rosters. First, I tracked the number of Inside Lacrosse Top 100 players (lacrosse&rsquao;s equivalent of the Rivals 250). The other piece of data I kept track of, for lack of a better term, is the “pedigree” of the players by following their location and whether or not their high school is listed on Laxpower.com’s Top 100 High Schools for 2011 (the BCS rankings of high school lacrosse, Laxpower uses a formula to rank all 3,000+ high schools that play lax in the country from #1-#3,000. It has yet to state why it is better than a playoff). As the comments from my last post showed, the lacrosse community assumes that only the top-ranked national high schools produce D1-level players, and the only players on these top college teams are from the four major hotbeds (New York, Maryland/DC, New Jersey, Pennsylvania). 

My hope is that we can see whether or not these locations and schools actually produce D1 talent in the numbers most people assume. That will give us a sense of how long it will take Michigan become a nationally competitive lacrosse program.

I know I should have averaged out the last 4 years of Laxpower ratings rather than just taking one year seemingly at random, but at the end of the day all national rankings are based mostly on reputation so there is not great variance in who is in the Top 100 year after year. This is an opening analysis, so if anyone wants to make it more precise, I’d love to read what you find.

Michigan Roster Analysis

I started with Michigan’s roster from 2007, the year before they won their first national title, and ended with the 2011 roster.  In terms of location, here is where Michigan has drawn their players from over the past five years:

State

'07

%

'08

%

'09

%

'10

%

'11

%

MI

17

43.5

19

48.7

17

43.5

13

28.2

14

35

NY

6

15.3

4

10.2

4

10.2

5

10.8

1

2.5

NJ

6

15.3

4

10.2

4

10.2

4

8.7

2

5

MD

3

7.7

3

7.7

2

5.1

3

6.5

4

10

PA

 

 

1

2.5

1

2.5

1

2.1

2

5

CT

 

 

2

5.1

1

2.5

2

4.3

3

7.5

MA

 

 

1

2.5

1

2.5

2

4.3

1

2.5

VA

1

2.5

 

 

1

2.5

2

4.3

 

 

IL

3

7.7

1

2.5

2

5.1

4

8.7

1

2.5

CO

1

2.5

2

5.1

2

5.1

1

2.1

1

2.5

FL

 

 

 

 

1

2.5

1

2.1

1

2.5

DC

 

 

 

 

1

2.5

1

2.1

1

2.5

KY

1

2.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MO

1

2.5

1

2.5

1

2.5

 

 

 

 

CA

 

 

1

2.5

1

2.5

3

6.5

2

5

OH

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

4.3

3

7.5

MN

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

1

2.5

UT

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2.1

1

2.5

TX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 2.5

Michigan’s roster has changed over the last five years as they became an MCLA juggernaut. The number of Michigan kids on the roster has dropped from a near majority in 2008 (nearly 49%) to a mere plurality this past season (35%). It has increased its draw from 9 states to 15 in 2011, which shows that the team’s name recognition increased as the team began winning MCLA titles.

The team has remained heavily dependent upon players from the Midwest. In 2007, the team had 21 players from the Midwest—almost 54% of the roster; in 2011, it had 21 players—51% of the roster. The East Coast representation has dropped slightly in this stretch, starting at 16 players (40%) and ending with 14 (35%). The remnants come from the South and the West.

Michigan has never signed an Inside Lacrosse Top 100 player, which should not be a surprise since it wasn’t a varsity team. In 2007 the team had 3 players from Top 50 high schools and 8 from the Top 100; 2008 had 3 Top 50 high schools, 8 Top 100; 2009 had 5 Top 50 and 10 Top 100; 2010 had 4 Top 50 and 9 Top 100; and in 2011 the team had 2 Top 50 high schools and 6 Top 100 high schools represented. On average, that comes out to 3.4 kids out of Top 50 high schools each season and 8.2 kids out of Top 100 high schools on the roster each season.

How Michigan Stacks Up Nationally

I chose eight schools to compare with Michigan’s roster. Here’s how I chose them (I will look at Michigan's conference, the ECAC, in my next entry):

  • Virginia, Maryland, Duke, Denver: The 2011 Final Four participants. Since that’s the ultimate goal for any program, those are the teams we want to compare ourselves to first
  • Cornell, Syracuse: They were the #1 and #2 seeds in the NCAA tournament, and champions of two of the toughest conferences in lacrosse (Ivy and Big East). They missed the Final Four, but were the class of lacrosse for most of the season
  • Johns Hopkins: They are the Notre Dame [Ed-M: ... when ND was relevant] of lacrosse. This year they were the #3 seed in the NCAA tournament. They have the most wins in lacrosse history and the most Final Fours even though they are not affiliated with a conference
  • Notre Dame: They were #1 for a good portion of the season, came in second in the Big East, and were NCAA runner ups in 2010. Also, they happen to be the closest to Ann Arbor in terms of location and were the last BCS school to add lacrosse (in 1981)
  • It also happens that these teams are ranked #1-8 in Inside Lacrosse’s way-too-early 2012 Preseason Poll.

Not infallible, but I hope you see the rationale.  On to the breakdown!

Virginia

2011: 13-5 (National Champions)
2012 Preseason: #1
Inside Lacrosse Top 50 Young Guns on Roster: 30
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 11 Top 50/18 Top 100
2010 Recruiting Class Rank: #4

Roster breakdown:

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

New York

9

21.9

Maryland

8

19.5

New Jersey

4

9.7

Virginia

4

9.7

Ontario

3

7.3

Connecticut

2

4.8

Pennsylvania

2

4.8

Massachusetts

2

4.8

Florida

1

2.4

Illinois

1

2.4

Rhode Island

1

2.4

California

1

2.4

North Carolina

1

2.4

Delaware

1

2.4

New Hampshire

1

2.4

 

Maryland

2011: 14-4 (NCAA Runner-Up, ACC Tournament Champion)
2012 Preseason: #7
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns Roster: 27
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 9/19
2010 Recruiting Class Rank: #3

Roster breakdown:

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

Maryland

23

46.9

New York

6

14.6

Pennsylvania

5

10.2

Virginia

3

6.1

New Jersey

2

4

Florida

2

4

Ohio

2

4

Washington

2

4

Connecticut

1

2

Michigan

1

2

Massachusetts

1

2

North Carolina

1

2

Duke

2011: 14-5 (NCAA Final Four, ACC Runner Up)
2012 Preseason Rank: #3
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 20
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 13/20
2010 Recruiting Class Rank: 5

Roster Breakdown:

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

New York

12

29.2

Maryland

5

12.1

Pennsylvania

5

12.1

Connecticut

5

12.1

Massachusetts

4

9.7

New Jersey

3

7.3

New Hampshire

2

4.8

Ohio

1

2.4

Alberta

1

2.4

Texas

1

2.4

California

1

2.4

North Carolina

1

2.4

One thing to note about the number of Young Guns on Duke: Their program took a big hit after the infamous “Duke Lacrosse Party/Sexual Incident/Legal Clusterfuck” of 2006. The program was suspended for a year, an entire senior class was granted an extra year of eligibility by the NCAA, and a new coach was brought in. Not surprisingly, that led to a junior class (class of 2008) that only had 2 Top 100 players. Expect a big bounce back in that number over the next 2 years for Duke.

Denver

2011: 16-2 (NCAA Final Four, ECAC Champ)
2012 Preseason: #4
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 8
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 12/17
2010 Recruiting Class: Not ranked (so below 20)

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

Colorado

9

20.9

Connecticut

6

13.9

Maryland

4

9.3

New Jersey

4

9.3

Ontario

3

6.9

Massachusetts

2

4.6

California

2

4.6

Rhode Island

2

4.6

Washington DC

1

2.3

Illinois

1

2.3

Minnesota

1

2.3

Kentucky

1

2.3

Arizona

1

2.3

British Columbia

1

2.3

Washington

1

2.3

Missouri

1

2.3

Florida

1

2.3

Ohio

1

2.3

Oregon

1

2.3

Denver is an interesting case. They came out of nowhere this year to make the Final Four (they have made the NCAA before, but never before had it made it to the Final Four). They are in a strange location as they are the Westernmost D1 school. The closest school to them in terms of distance is Notre Dame [edit: unless you forget to count Air Force. So, one of two teams in Colorado and west of Notre Dame. Thanks for the catch, Tim], so they are on a bit of an Island.

On top of that, they are in their second year under the helm of legendary coach Bill Tierney.  Tierney won 6 NCAA titles at Princeton before moving to Denver, so this would be the equivalent of Mack Brown leaving Texas to lead Villanova to the FBS. Tierney has said he thinks Colorado is a tremendous recruiting area, so it has more in-state talent than outsiders probably think. Interesting from a Michigan prospective since it shows how you can win from a new location, but also not relevant since we don’t have a Hall of Fame coach that is a living recruiting legend coming in to take the helm (not a shot at John Paul, just a fact).

Syracuse

2011:  15-2 (NCAA Quarterfinalist, Big East Champion)
2012 Preseason: #8
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 29
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 11/15
2010 Recruiting Class: #2

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

New York

28

56

New Jersey

5

10

Virginia

3

6

Connecticut

3

6

Ohio

3

6

Massachusetts

2

4

Illinois

1

2

Maryland

1

2

Pennsylvania

1

2

Ontario

1

2

Oregon

1

2

Colorado

1

2

New Hampshire

1

2

Cornell

2011: 14-3 (NCAA Quarterfinalist, Ivy League Champion)
2012 Preseason: #2
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 7
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 9/17
2010 Recruiting Class: #12

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

New York

18

42.8

Ontario

6

14.2

Massachusetts

4

9.5

Pennsylvania

2

4.6

Washington

2

4.6

California

2

4.6

Virginia

1

2.3

Maryland

1

2.3

Delaware

1

2.3

Rhode Island

1

2.3

British Columbia

1

2.3

Texas

1

2.3

Connecticut

1

2.3

Washington DC

1

2.3

Johns Hopkins

2011: 13-3 (NCAA Quarterfinalist)
2012 Preseason: #5
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 26
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 10/22
2010 Recruiting Class: 6

State

Number on Roster

% of Roster

Maryland

10

23.2

New York

9

20.9

Pennsylvania

5

11.6

New Jersey

5

11.6

Ohio

3

6.9

Arizona

2

4.6

Ontario

2

4.6

Florida

2

4.6

Rhode Island

1

2.3

Massachusetts

1

2.3

Minnesota

1

2.3

Michigan

1

2.3

Texas

1

2.3

Notre Dame

2011: 11-3(NCAA Quarterfinalist, Big East Runner Up)
2012 Preseason: #6
Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on Roster: 16
Top 50/100 High School Graduates on Roster: 13/22
2010 Recruiting Class: #11

State

Number of Players

% of Roster

Maryland

12

24.4

New York

8

16.3

New Jersey

6

12.6

Pennsylvania

5

10.2

Connecticut

4

8.1

Virginia

3

6.1

Massachusetts

2

4

Ohio

2

4

Georgia

1

2

Michigan

1

2

California

1

2

North Carolina

1

2

Texas

1

2

Illinois

1

2

Florida

1

2

Chart Overload and Feeling Overwhelmed, So What Does This All Mean?

We can see a couple of trends appear in the makeup of these teams. It turns out that the conventional wisdom is accurate: an overwhelming number of players on the top D1 teams in the country come from the Mid-Atlantic hotbeds. These 8 rosters included a total of 358 players. 25% of all the players on these Top 8 rosters are from New York. 18% of players on these rosters are Marylandians. Those two states alone constitute more than 40% of all top level college players. New Jersey (8%) and Pennsylvania (7%), not surprisingly, check in as the third and fourth most represented states, respectively. The hotbeds represent almost 60% of the players on these rosters. Extreme outlier Denver is the only program that does not have a majority of players from the hotbed.

We also see trends in what schools these players are getting recruited out of. Every school has at least 9 players on its roster from the current Laxpower Top 50 high schools; every school has at least 15 players from Top 100 high schools. The average number for these programs is 10.8 players from Top 50 high schools, and 18.5 players from Top 100 high schools. These schools carry 40-50 players on the roster, so between 20-25% of the roster is composed of players from these Top 100 high schools. Not surprisingly, the majority of these schools are in the Mid-Atlantic region. Michigan has 1 school in the Top 100, Illinois 1, Indiana 1, Ohio 3—there are few options in the region.

Finally, we see similar trends in quality of recruit. These schools average 20 Inside Lacrosse Young Guns on the roster, which comes to 5 per recruiting class. The two outliers are Cornell and Denver, who with 7 and 8 Young Guns respectively, are the only teams on the list with less than 15 Young Guns. If you eliminate these two outliers, the average jumps to 24.67 (or 6 per recruiting class). Inside Lacrosse provides this great map of where there Top 100 players have come from for the past four years. From 2007-2009, Michigan produced 3 Top 100 players (2 Brother Rice, 1 Detroit Country Day). The Midwest as a whole produced 13 (3 from Michigan, 2 Illinois, 8 from Ohio). For comparison sake, New York produced 27 in 2009 alone. There is some serious D1 talent in the state and region, but not the depth to rely solely on Michigan and its contiguous states.

So no matter how we slice it right now, location means a lot, and where you recruit seems to play a very serious role in how your team stacks up nationally.

 

What This Means For Michigan

Michigan is going to need a pretty serious overhaul of their roster before they are able to compete with the big boys for national championships. This should really only shock lacrosse players that haven’t played games outside the state of Michigan before. We’re going from having players who pay tuition and $1-3,000 dollars in dues per year (I don’t know Michigan’s figures specifically, but that’s typical for an MCLA program), to attempting to bring in the best players in the nation. We’re going to have to do things differently, and the faster we change, the faster we’ll be competitive.

So, how do we need to change? Here’s a chart that compares the regional make-up of 2011 Michigan’s roster to the Top 8 schools.

Region

% Michigan Roster

% Top 8's Roster
Midwest (MI, OH, MN, IL)

47.5

5.9
Mid-Atlantic (NY, NJ, MD, DE, PA)

25

58.7
New England (CT, MA, NH)

10

13.5
West (CA, UT, AZ, WA, OR, Canada)

5

12
South (VA, NC, GA, FL, TX, KY)

7.5

9.2


As stated before, the Mid-Atlantic represents nearly 60% of the players on the top programs. The Midwest represents less than 6% of the roster on those teams, and the state of Michigan has only produced 3 players total in the last four years that earned roster spots on these Top 8 programs. Michigan’s current roster is nearly 50% Midwestern players, and only 12.5% are from New York and Maryland. Michigan needs to cut the number of Midwestern recruits on its roster by 85%, more than double the number of players it recruits out of the Mid-Atlantic. Just as the Michigan football team cannot compete for national championships by recruiting players only from the state of Michigan, neither can the lacrosse program. While in the long term hopefully having a varsity team in state will increase the growth of high school lacrosse in Michigan, and consequently lead to more in-state talent, in the short run this presents a problem for Michigan.

 

So How Long Will This Take?

Good question.  Most likely, Michigan will not have a recruiting class that reflects the school's attractiveness to the sorts of guys who play lacrosse on the East Coast until 2014. They will probably be getting in too late for top 2013 kids. After all, here’s a list of the current commits from the Class of 2012. All of the top schools have pretty much closed their recruiting with the exception of 1-2 spots for “athletic projects” or transfers. That means we’re looking at 5-6 years before we see a roster composed of dominant players from dominant regions that played for dominant high schools. That’s a sobering number—it means John Paul’s building project is much more along the lines of Tom Crean and Indiana basketball than Urban Meyer and Florida football.

There is one wildcard out there. We don’t know how long John Paul and Dave Brandon have talked about making Michigan a D1 program. If John Paul has known for a year, he may very well have spent the last 12 months getting in touch with high school players in the classes of 2012 and 2013. Maybe these players are listed as committed to a Duke or Syracuse, but were ready to switch their commitment if Michigan made the move to D1.  This would mean Coach Paul’s been able to make headway with these players at the ground level, and isn’t just trying to scramble in at the last minute. If Paul was able to do this hush-hush recruiting, he may be able to sneak a couple of low-level Top 100 players in 2012 that buy into his vision, and then have a very good-to-great class in 2013. If that’s the case, we could be looking at 2-3 years before our roster on paper could hang on paper with the big boys.

I hope this gives you all a better sense of how the program will adjust to D1 status. My next diary will look at how Michigan’s roster stacks within it’s own conference, the ECAC. Please leave anything else you'd like me to include for next time in the comments.

inside lacrosse

Comments

Tim

June 20th, 2011 at 4:58 PM ^

I see a couple of data errors. Off the top of my head for this year's roster, there are at least 2 players from California, but your chart lists none.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

Tim

June 20th, 2011 at 5:23 PM ^

OK, after reading the whole thing, a couple points:

  • Michigan is adding 4 recruits from top-100 schools in the 2011 class - 2 from Georgetown Prep, 1 from Brother Rice, and 1 from Greenwich. Obviously that's just one step in the right direction, but it is indeed a step in the right direction.
  • Denver (quick point - Air Force is also in Colorado, so there are 2 schools ono that "island") has followed a different recruiting strategy, going after a lot of Canadians lately. With the increasing Canadian influence in the college game, it'll be interesting to see what that does with recruiting.
  • JP and Brandon have been talking about D1 lacrosse since the week after Brandon started as AD (that would be March 18th, 2010). JP told me that he hadn't been recruiting as though he knew for a fact that they would be D-1, but telling recruits there was a chance. That seems to lead at least a bit of credence to your "secret commit" theory.

Great information, looking forward to the next installment.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

WolvinLA2

June 20th, 2011 at 6:23 PM ^

This might be way too out there, but one, if not the, top LAX program in California is La Costa Canyon high school, the HS of current M commit Erik Magnuson.  It's a completely different sport, but having a recent athlete from the school coming to Michigan can't hurt for a future lax star.

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

phjhu89

June 20th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^

...does anyone have an idea if Michigan's hockey-related name recognition in Ontario could have an effect on lax recruiting?  TIm - do you know if JP has any connections with the prep schools in Ontario that play the field game and have kids interested in attending college in the US?  

 

Joined: 05/16/2009

MGoPoints: 711

Tim

June 21st, 2011 at 12:47 PM ^

Michigan hasn't had a Canadian player in JP's tenure as club coach (at least as far back as the rosters on their site go), so I'd be surprised if he has a lot of connections there. He's been more focused on building up DC/Baltimore and NJ/LI-type connections than in Canada.

That said, Trevor Yealy (and I assume others) spent the past offseason playing junior ball in Ontario, so maybe there could be some connections forged.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

Yonkers

June 20th, 2011 at 9:37 PM ^

Recruiting kids from out east is going to be pretty tough. Michigan is an attractive school and offers alot of perks, but usually the best out east kids want to go to the best out east schools. Alot of it has to do with their families too, some kids have alot of connections with the schools. Fathers, Uncles, Grandfathers might have played their, and that has alot of influence on an 18 y/o kid and his family. Some has to do with blue blood new england lifestyle, following a family tradition and stuff like that. We just need to do well and sort of establish ourselfs, and work with what we got, because you can always improve the athletes we currentley have now.

Joined: 06/15/2011

MGoPoints: 197

Tim

June 20th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^

It's the classic story of building up a power (anybody who's ever started a Troy/FAU/Eastern Michigan dynasty in an NCAA Football game knows what I'm talking about). You're going to have to build a tradition before you can get a lot of the elite recruits, unless there's a special "in." 

There are different ways to get that "in" (I, for one, will not complain if Michigan keeps taking kids from Georgetown Prep), but the best strategy to building a dynasty is to build tradition by making the most of what you've got.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

June 21st, 2011 at 12:28 AM ^

Well, I don't think Michigan is going to play with the big boys right off the bat for the top recruits.  I think at first the recruiting classes are going to be made up of the second-level recruits that otherwise might've gone to a place like Stony Brook or Towson.  The thing about lacrosse is that if you play it well you can get into some really good schools, and lax recruits aren't thinking about lacrosse as a career like basketball, baseball, football players are.  So they want those really good schools.  If Joe Recruit from Baltimore can't get a look from Duke and UVA and Cornell and Hopkins, but he's got the local schools (Towson, UMBC, Loyola, say) on him, and Michigan comes calling, I bet you'd see a lot of those kids jump at the offer.  The right coaching can do really good things with that kind of player (see Bucknell, Siena.)  Then as we step up the game, we step up the recruiting.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

El Jeffe

June 23rd, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

I know nothing abut LAX but this makes a lot of intuitive sense to me.

The somewhat equivalent sport (in terms of national standing and regional hotbeds of talent) that I do know a little about is men's volleyball. I'm pretty sure that if Michigan started a men's volleyball program, they wouldn't be able to snag recruits from most of the west coast programs like UCLA or Pepperdine or the top midwest programs (Penn State and *shudder* TSIO), but they should be able to snag some top recruits from Ball State, IPFW, Quincy (that's right, Quincy), or some of the eastern schools like Rutgers-Newark or Sacred Heart (that's right, Sacred Heart).

Joined: 07/07/2008

MGoPoints: 27329

MaizeNBlu628

June 21st, 2011 at 8:18 AM ^

I'm originally from Maryland, and lived right in the center of where some of the top lax high schools played. I don't believe it'll be as difficult as you think to pull these kids out of the east coast. Families/parents/students in maryland think extremely highly of Michigan (my hs sends atleast a dozen or so students to michigan every year). When I went home and told people I go to Michigan, they are all genuienly impressed.

Since most lax players do come from affluent families,  these parents just want their kid to go a top notch institution. I think the biggest pull for michigan for kids out there will be the education that Michigan offers. I had a few friends from my hs that went to play for Maryland and Hopkins, so I'll try to reach out and maybe get their opinion.

Joined: 08/21/2009

MGoPoints: 2786

WolvinLA2

June 23rd, 2011 at 8:14 PM ^

I get what you're saying mini-Meter, but it's also very common for East Coasters to head to Big Ten country for college, especially UM.  For every East Coast kid whose dad went to Duke or Johns Hopkins, there is a kid whose dad went to Michigan - our alumni base out there is huge. 

Although I agree that it will be a very hard thing to pull a NY kid from Syracuse or a Maryland kid from Hopkins or Maryland, we'll get the kids just below those kids for a few years, and the difference won't be that big. 

We also need to remember that HS lacrosse is growing MUCH faster than college lacrosse is right now.  High school lacrosse has nearly doubled in the last 10 years, and the number of D1 roster spots hasn't increased by much at all, as a percentage.  This means that the teams in the next tier below the Syracuse and Hopkins and Duke types (where I believe M will fall after a couple years) will have a much larger base to pick from, and the amount of parity in D1 lacrosse will increase a lot.  In fact, it already has (see: Denver, ND).

Joined: 11/13/2009

MGoPoints: 58191

Fhshockey112002

June 21st, 2011 at 12:12 AM ^

I by no means am a lacrosse insider, or follow recruiting, but living in Syracuse I do get the opportunity to see some solid college/ pro lacrosse.  

I know Denver has really capitalized on brining Canadian "box lacrosse" players into their program.  It may be useful to the board for the OP to do a quick explanation of how the two games are very different, for those people just getting into the sport.

I bring this up because I believe Ontario will be a great place for Michigan to find talent (attacking and offensive middies) early in the building stage of the program.

Joined: 11/08/2010

MGoPoints: 2464

Brooks

June 21st, 2011 at 9:10 AM ^

Thanks a lot for the idea.  I'll try and write about this more in depth after I finish this recruiting write up.

Here's the short answer.  The field lacrosse game is played on a field roughly the same size as a football field, and in settled situations it's 6 offensive players vs. 6 defensive players (plus a goalie).  Those 6 offensive players have an area roughly 60 yards by 60 yards.  Indoor lacrosse (also called box lacrosse or boxla) is played on an indoor soccer field and is 5 v 5.  So roughly the same number of people, but a dramatically smaller field.  Also, while field lacrosse goalies only have a larger stick and the same pads as field players to defend a goal that is 6ft x 6ft, box goalies where hockey goalie equipment and defend a goal that is half that size.  While a lot of American players in the North will play box in the winter before going back outside in the spring, Canadian players historically have only plaed box.

Growing up on a smaller field, Canadian players are used to playing in much tighter spaces than some Americans.  This means they can feed passes through much tighter windows, catching feeds under a lot of defensive pressure and getting off quick shots, and shooting on goalies that take up almost the entire goal.  When these players go into the field game, they are very successful because they are able to shoot and score in situations where other players would consider themselves covered.

Joined: 06/07/2011

MGoPoints: 1063

mgolax04

June 26th, 2011 at 10:12 PM ^

The biggest reason Canadian players haven't historically found their way onto Michigan's roster is that they generally didn't have the grades to get into UM.  With the admissions standards likely somewhat relaxed from regular students it will be up to JP whether or not to recruit these guys based on the style of offense he wants to run.  There's a pretty good history of box players transitioning well to field play (see: Grant, John).  Historically UM has had a few players who exhibit typical box characteristics so JP is familiar with using these types of guys in an offense.  Denver and Syracuse are two prominent programs who have used box players effectively (at SU they draw on the Iroquois nation, which also largely plays box) but, without trying to sound like a snob, those schools aren't Michigan (or Hopkins, UVA, Duke, etc.) so it's a little easier for them to get those guys in. 

Joined: 02/03/2010

MGoPoints: 1

MGOTUBA

June 21st, 2011 at 12:33 AM ^

I don't know much about Lacrosse but I enjoy watching the games when espn airs the finals. These posts are very helpfull for learning the background of the college game.

Joined: 04/06/2011

MGoPoints: 16

Salinger

June 21st, 2011 at 8:03 AM ^

I am no expert, and I do not have any idea what the recruiting landscape is in the sport.  However, as a program that is just stepping into the D1 arena, I think it may be a bit presumptuous to assume that Michigan has a chance of hanging with the big boys in the recruiting world come 2013-14.  Is it possible that we will have to prove our metal before recruits will give us an equal look?  I know we have won NCs at the club level, but I didn't think that was the same thing.

 

Again, I'm no expert and am really just positing this as a point of dialogue.  

 

Any thoughts?

Joined: 01/11/2011

MGoPoints: 5409

IrishLax

June 21st, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^

The level of play is lightyears different.  As I said in another thread, I had a friend from Texas A&M transfer to ND who was a starter and dominant club player.  He couldn't even make ND's roster at our weakest position.  That's how different the level of talent is.

Michigan can be competitive in 3-4 years.  Expecting miracles before then is a bit optimistic.

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 53

Tim

June 21st, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

Uh, as big as the talent gap between the best and worst D-1 teams, it's much, much bigger at the club level.

Trying to go from one of the worst club teams to one of the best NCAA teams has almost no relevancy in Michigan going from the best club program (by far) to an average-to-good D-1 team.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

IrishLax

June 21st, 2011 at 1:44 PM ^

But A&M was 13-3 when he was there in '07 and best in their conference... I'd hardly call that "one of the worst" club teams.  The only point I was trying to illustrate is that there is a big difference in talent between club (even the best MCLA teams) and the competitive DI teams (aka a team that could make the tourney).  So even if you don't find my personal example relevant, you should hopefully agree with that.

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 53

Tim

June 21st, 2011 at 3:23 PM ^

Honestly, especially a few years ago, the LSA was/is easily the worst conference in the MCLA - by an enormous margin. Sure, A&M may have been the best, but being the best of the LSA means very little. They had one good win all year (7-5 over Colorado), and the NCAA football equivalent, for example, would be the Sun Belt Champion.

The best player on a Sun Belt team is probably worse than most players on a BCS-league team, except the talent disparity in MCLA lacrosse is light years wider than that in NCAA Football. It's changing for the LSA with Texas starting to keep some decent players at home, but in all honesty, some of the most important players on Texas A&M in 2007 would be third-line or cut from Michigan's 2007 team, much less the MCLA juggernaut that Michigan turned into.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Michigan will be able to step in D-1 and succeed right away (they absolutely will not), but using Texas A&M as an example... it just doesn't apply.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

Laxtec

June 21st, 2011 at 11:29 AM ^

Newby to the site but couldn't help myself when I heard about UM jumping into the D1 fray. Having first hand knowledge of top D1 lacrosse it is very exciting to see it come to Michigan. Brook your post is spot on...hope everyone is reading between the lines. It will take a while to get the Wolverines to the point of being competitive at the D1 level let alone be a top program. You need numerious Top 50/100 players and UAA on your roster. What is critical IMO is the next two years. Paul will get a hall pass this coming year and will need it. If the Wolve's cannot compete after year two then the talent pool will not be so quick to abandon traditional Lax programs for UM. I think the key is to get transfers in  now who can instantly contribute. With the coaching carousal the last two years Paul should be making statements during his updates with IL and others that if you are not happy with your current situation get a release and let's talk....

Looking forward to P3.

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 1

IrishLax

June 21st, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^

I'm not sure if someone already mentioned this (sorry, I'm at work and have to skim... but seemed like some very good info and research!), but there is an exceptional amount of talent that comes from Canada every year (and isn't really accounted for in any "recruit rankings").  Denver, Syracuse (because of a deal they have with Native Americans from Canada/US to go to school there for free) and some other typically get a large number of their star players from Canada.  And these guys are as good as any Americans... especially in settled 6-on-6 situations because of their box lacrosse pedigree.

Michigan's best chance to be a great team quickly is to start tapping into this resource.  With their proximity to Canada and the brand of excellence that is Michigan hockey this should not be hard.  If Michigan can start grabbing all of the Mark Matthews, John Grants and Kevin Crowleys they will be extremely competitive.

For perspective, Team Canada beat Team USA two world cups ago, beat them in the prelims this year and should've beaten them again in the finals were it not for a very lucky save.  Canada is loaded and if you can concentrate that talen in a single school (re: Michigan) the sky is the limit.

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 53

Tim

June 21st, 2011 at 12:53 PM ^

I said it above, but for now, I'd be surprised if Michigan tried to tap the Canadian well right away. JP has spent the past several years building up connections in MD/DC and NJ/LI, so look for him to go there first.

There are plenty of programs (Syracuse, as you mentioned - and for the record, Native Americans qualify for a full scholarship to most American institutions - and Detroit, kind of talking about opposite ends of the overall talent spectrum) that have already spent years building those Canadian connections.

Sure, down the road it could become a great source of talent, or maybe a couple here and there in the first few years of D-1, but to expect a suddent influx of Canadian talent is misguided, IME.

Joined: 07/08/2008

MGoPoints: 13040

jayness

June 21st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^

It will take time for Michigan to field a top Division Program, but there is a good base of talent in the Detroit Region, Brother Rice, Birmingham, etc....There's usually a few guys from those schools/area competing at the top schools. The East Coast is the traditional home of the game, and many players hail from NY, NJ, Maryland, DC, Virginia, Penn, CT, MASS. From that group the truly fertile areas are the syracuse/corltand area, Baltimore, and Long Island....the best teams from those areas typically field lineups where the entire starting team is heading D1. A few years back one of the best attackmen at a D3 school had been the 5th attackmen at his baltimore high school. It should be remembered as well that there are many recruits at some of the D3 schools that are also top D1 material. We are talking about an elitist sport in that the typical lax player is an affluent, suburban kid.

 

Also within the D1 top teams there are the traditional teams that have a cache that will be hard to match, they are Syracuse, Virginia, Maryland, Hopkins, Princeton, and nowadays you could add UNC, Duke, Georgetown, Notre Dame, etc... there are also the ivies and more regional schools in the East that have very talented players and its going to be a hard sell for Michigan. However, by broadening the base to hotbeds Like Denver, SoCal UM could find a lot of hardworking talented players ...throw in a few dynamite Canadians and maybe we could field a competitive D1 team.

The success at Club level is meaningless.......many Club guys would have trouble breaking the rosters of any D1 team, thats the truth, the difference is significant

 

 

Joined: 06/21/2011

MGoPoints: 1

wresler120

June 21st, 2011 at 8:00 PM ^

will definitely help with the recruitment of Lacrosse players who attend the same school. Magnuson has been a huge advocate of Michigan, and very vocal. I am sure he can sway a few of his lacrosse buddies to give Michigan a look.

Joined: 10/17/2010

MGoPoints: 1405

Blazefire

June 21st, 2011 at 11:44 PM ^

I have soooo much to learn. I need to attend a few games. Whenever I try to watch video, it's not professionally produced, so it's hard to get the flow of the game. I prefer to attend games where I have a clue who's playing. This is a great help.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

quigley.blue

June 23rd, 2011 at 12:25 PM ^

Along with DB, Hoke, Red, and Beilein which I was very happy to see.  He was asked specifically about recruiting kids in the area.  He joked about whether anybody in the audience had any ins, but also mentioned that he had been and would be travelling to the area. 

He asked for some time and understanding, but in my opinion was at the same time expressing a committment to getting a foothold in this area and the other hotbed areas that you've mentioned. 

Joined: 03/01/2010

MGoPoints: 5389

CRex

June 23rd, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

A lot of those charts (the one for each team) are just noise really.  The only chart that really matters is how ~59% of the Top 100 come from the Mid-Altantic.  I like the work but next time I'm not sure it if it worth your time to go beyond regional granulatity and maybe a few power states.  Kind of like how football is: Texas, Florida, Ohio, Cali and regional.  No one ever really tracks the number of kids from say Montana on a per team basis.  

Joined: 09/28/2009

MGoPoints: 9010

mgoblue1979

June 23rd, 2011 at 12:57 PM ^

Great stuff so far, thanks!

One thing that I would like to add: I recruited for U-M Undergrad Admissions for 7 years: New Jersey for 4 years, Westchester County (NY) and Connecticut for 1 year, and 2 years in NYC (The 5 boroughs).  U-M is hugely popular in NY (especially on Long Island), NJ, and Maryland.  There are many students whose grandparents, parents, and/or siblings went U-M, and the fact that we now have D-1 Lacrosse, my guess is that we will become a legitimate option for many students. Also, these recruits will likely have friends going to U-M just for academics, so that could very well be an even bigger draw, not to mention the quality academics that we offer. This will be very interesting to follow.

Go Blue

Joined: 06/23/2011

MGoPoints: 2

MAgoBLUE

June 23rd, 2011 at 3:22 PM ^

Great diary Brooks.  I'm enjoying the series.  One comment I have is that a number of the top teams had Rhode Island players but in your final tally of roster percentages you excluded Rhode Island from the New England totals.

Also, in your opinion what state in New England produces the best talent?  When I grew up in Mass hardly any public schools played the sport but that has been changing in the last 10-15 years.  I think the advantage Mass has in population will see it surpass CT but for now they've gotta be producing better talent on a per capita level right?  The game has more of a history there especially in Fairfield County which is culturally closer to NY than it is to New England.

Joined: 05/21/2010

MGoPoints: 2485

MAgoBLUE

June 23rd, 2011 at 3:47 PM ^

I did a calculation including Rhode Island and the percentage of New Englanders on the top 8's roster went from 13.5% to 14.25%.  I think maybe the OP forgot to include New Hampshire totals instead of Rhode Island even though he wrote New England as "MA, CT and NH".  Either way it's a good diary.

Joined: 05/21/2010

MGoPoints: 2485

Brooks

June 23rd, 2011 at 4:13 PM ^

Thanks a lot for catching that.  That's a typo on my part-- I did include Rhode Island when I totaled up the percentages, but forgot to include it on the chart.  The 13.5% number is accurate, but I labled it wrong.  When I get the chance, I'll edit that to include RI.

To elaborate on Tim's point from this date, the number in New England broke down as such:

22- Connecticut

18- Massachusetts

5- Rhode Island

4- New Hampshire

0- Vermont, Maine

So the gap between MA and CT is not as big within these top programs as it is nationally, but CT is still the leader even in this smaller sample size.

Joined: 06/07/2011

MGoPoints: 1063

MGlobules

June 23rd, 2011 at 4:53 PM ^

regarding the prestige of schools in the lacrosse game. In football you can draw a kid who wants a great education AND to play at a great football school. Many of the great lax schools are super-good ed institutions, and on the East Coast where a lot of the (often wealthy) kids want to stay, anyway. Not sure how you overcome this--taking them away from Notre Dame and growing the game close to home would be two immediate thoughts. Getting one or two really gifted players to come and start a legacy is another.

It's a great game, and I'm glad Michigan is pouring in resources, but it looks like it could be a slow build. 

Joined: 11/17/2008

MGoPoints: 47676

rickw

June 23rd, 2011 at 5:25 PM ^

little FYI for Mass and rest of New England. Many players may be from boarding schools; e.g., I noticed my former school was the top rankled school in NE, and had 5 2012 commitments, to Ivies and Duke. It is highly likely that 0-1 are from Mass;they are probably from the mid-Atl. region and learned the game there. So that could affect recruiting tactics a little.

Joined: 06/23/2011

MGoPoints: 2

yogurtdelights…

June 23rd, 2011 at 7:04 PM ^

I played at Michigan and a D1 school before that (Bucknell) and the biggest difference was depth.  Every day in practice I went up kids who weren't the best players on their high school team (those players went to Top 10 programs) but started for multiple years at programs like Delbarton, Darien, and Boys' Latin.  Most of the kids on Michigan's current roster are from the Midwest, didn't earn All-American honors in high school, and are late bloomers (recent graduate examples being Freid and Asperheim).   

Michigan might have to take kids from non-traditional areas or below the radar kids from good programs at the start but kids want to go to Michigan.  East Coast kids love it.  And the game is growing enough where players from California (Rob Emery, Roy Lang) are dominating.  Show them a weekend #withtheboys and a football Saturday and I'm sure JP will have no problem reeling 'em in.  

Also of note, Judd Lattimore (hired today) coached me at Bucknell and is a great fit.  He will complement Broschart's intense style well and knows how to relate to college kids.  

Joined: 06/23/2011

MGoPoints: 2

Blazefire

June 23rd, 2011 at 8:47 PM ^

We all know that in football, recruits from southern states are rated higher because the area is more heavily developed as a football feeder. Is it possible that with a big name school like M going D1 in Lacrosse, the midwest could become more heavily scouted and evaluated, and we could see a more widely distributed top 100 in the future?

The kids out of the east coast high schools are the best because it's a big deal there, but they don't necessarily have better athletes or kids naturally BETTER at the sport. Just more developed.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

Brooks

June 23rd, 2011 at 9:16 PM ^

Great question, a lot of this does have to do with reputation of schools and areas. And, as people have pointed out in this and the previous diary, if the sport continues to grow at it's current rate the more talented players (particularly from the Midwest) will be available to Michigan. So, the big difference right now between the Midwest and the hotbeds are two fold. First, players in the hotbeds begin playing youth and club lacrosse in kindergarten and first grade. For most kids in the Midwest, your first real opportunity to play for a team is seventh grade. So while you may be a great athlete in the Midwest, you are also 6-7 years behind in terms of stick skills and game knowledge. That takes a while to overcome no matter how great an athlete you are. There are some places, like Columbus, that have great youth programs, but those players are just now starting to hit high school and the college level. Second, there is a huge difference in coaching. The head coach at UNC was at Ohio State until 2009, and he said that a 7th grade coach in Baltimore would be a varsity coach anywhere in the Midwest. Players in Baltimore have alums from Hopkins, Maryland and UVA coaching them from the minute they start playing-- in the Midwest, you may very well not have a coach that played college ball until you make a varsity team.

Joined: 06/07/2011

MGoPoints: 1063

bestgoblue

June 23rd, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^

I was a role player for a top 50 HS lacrosse team where I played with several guys who ended up being key contributors for Syracuse, Virgina, and Duke to name a few. I also played at Michigan for a year. In my opinion, our club team at Michigan had some guys who were better athletes than anyone from my HS lacrosse team. The problem was that they were raw and unpolished in terms of lacrosse skill. In my HS, our best athletes had been playing the sport since 3rd grade and had great coaches all along, while at Michigan some guys started learning the game in HS.

With that said, one shouldn't overlook the socio-economic aspect of lacrosse. Great recruits will always come from wealthy areas because lacrosse offers no financial rewards other than getting into an elite institution. That's one reason why it might be hard to develop the sport in the Midwest. 

Joined: 06/23/2011

MGoPoints: 2