LaxTV Forums | A Forum About The MCLA

I am a high school coach in Northern Virginia and next month there is a vote with the VHSL in an attempt to repeal the "No Out of Season Coaching" rule. Below is a link to the article in the Washington Post. Many are split on this topic. I feel this is a detriment to the players and our sport. In my own experience, the best lacrosse players are those who are multi-sport athletes. If this rule is repealed, what's to stop the football or basketball coach from requiring his players to play year-round. I thought it interesting (and very appropriate) that they used this example in the article:

"Coaches are competitive people. Most put in long hours for little pay. They want to win. And they exert enormous influence over young athletes in direct and indirect ways: "Your future is in football, why waste your time with lacrosse?"


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... DAR&sub=AR

What are the "out of season" rules in other states around the country. Thoughts on this issue are greatly appreciated!

California has this rule for that exact reason.

interesting.

When I played high school football in Texas we took football as a class, so the last period of the day was football, and practice would run till 6PM or 7PM. The offseason we still had football during the last period and did drills, lifted weights and conditioned, usually getting out of practice about 30 min after the other students get out of school. Although it was nice to get PE credit for football, unlike my HS in Maryland, there was no encouragement to play other sports. In fact, I remember the baseball players, track players, and soccer players had to first go to football offseason, then to their regular practice (football coach was also AD).

At my HS in MD the AD encouraged (more like hounded) you to play three sports, so I did football, indoor track, and lacrosse. So I went from being a three sport athlete in MD to a one sport athlete in TX, although I was playing club lacrosse with Baylor after school (this is before they had all those silly eligibility rules ).

It is hard to say which is the better deal. Being a multi sport athlete certainly has its benefits, but being able to focus solely on one sport year round will make you better at that sport. I tried to start a lacrosse team at my HS in TX and went about trying to sell it to the AD as a perfect offseason sport to football. Their reaction was that they already have offseason for football so who cares about lacrosse. It would be interesting to see the numbers of college athlete recruits that are multi sport vs those that are able to train all year in the one sport they focus on. In my opinion, high schools and colleges need to back off a bit on the intensive programs they are running these days and get back to the basic interscholastic competition.

When I played high school football in Texas we took football as a class, so the last period of the day was football, and practice would run till 6PM or 7PM. The offseason we still had football during the last period and did drills, lifted weights and conditioned, usually getting out of practice about 30 min after the other students get out of school. Although it was nice to get PE credit for football, unlike my HS in Maryland, there was no encouragement to play other sports.

major problem with TX public schools-but that's another discussion for another day.

I think the elimination of the no off-season rule is just crazy, but we all know what ADs focus on....the big 3 football, basketball and baseball.
While year round training would certainly have an adverse effect on lacrosse, I think the biggest loser would be boy's track and field.
I remember when I was in high school a large majority of the track and field athletes also played other sports. T&F was used as training for football and basketball by many.

buffalowill wrote:I think the elimination of the no off-season rule is just crazy, but we all know what ADs focus on....the big 3 football, basketball and baseball.
While year round training would certainly have an adverse effect on lacrosse, I think the biggest loser would be boy's track and field.
I remember when I was in high school a large majority of the track and field athletes also played other sports. T&F was used as training for football and basketball by many.

here here... track and field was nothing but conditioning for our HS football team; linemen did shot put, and wr/cb's did sprints or relays; if you didn't participate in spring sports, you had a real hard time making first (or any) squad. it wasnt my school specifically; it was any school in our area that had this rule

Campbell wrote: Being a multi sport athlete certainly has its benefits, but being able to focus solely on one sport year round will make you better at that sport.

This is not necessarily true. I've spoken to a lot of people on this issue, and the consensus is that the people who play 3 sports become better at all of them because they learn different things that transfer to other sports and because they don't get burned out on one sport.

One AD told me he had a lot of parents who wanted their kids to, say, play soccer year-round so they could get a scholarship, but he said the kids who got scholarships were the 3-sport athletes. That could be cause or effect, but in either case it counters the belief that one needs to specialize to be good enough to get a scholarship.

Think about lacrosse: won't someone who plays basketball be able to maintain or improve conditioning while developing field awareness and cutting skills they might never fully develop playing only lacrosse?

I think this specialization thing is largely about selfish adults. I mean, who is it better for to play football year round: the coach, or the majority of kids who will never play another down after high school?

Finally, there's nothing that says these kids can't play a sport year round if they really want to. It's just that they can't practice under the same coach, which, as others have pointed out, keeps the coach from being able to force people to play for him year round in order to keep a spot on the team. There are lots of kids who play Varsity soccer in the fall and then play on club teams the rest of the year; basketball is similar with AAU ball.

At a camp over the summer, Coach Meade from the Naval Academy said it best,

"I ask kids what sports they play other than lacrosse...if they say that they only play lacrosse, Im not interested. I want the kids that play lacrosse, and football, etc and show some diversity. Because if all you have is lacrosse...what are you going to do when lacrosse is over?"

Something along those lines Oaks or Corbin were with me if they remember too.

He should come out to southern California, lacrosse is never over.

Most college coaches agree with Meade on that one. I know I do. Although, I don't think it has as much bearing on what they'll do when lacrosse is over as your quote of him implies. I think it has more to do with the development of good athletes that exposure to different sports and coaches can provide.

In Washington State they have a similar rule--your coaches can't have organized practices with their players in the off-season. . .but several of the top programs work around this rule. They have parents run "captain's" practices all-year 'round, despite the fact that their coaches aren't allowed to have formal practice with their teams until late February. The head coach isn't present, but the kids are still working together in "voluntary captain's practices. . ."

The teams that truly adhere to the rules end up months behind the programs that bend the rules. . .

In high school we did the "Captains Practice" in california. I dont think it is bendng the rules at all. We wanted to play and we werent allowed to start practice until Feb so we would all get together JV and Varsity and have a big game. Our coach was never there and you didnt have to come, but the if you could come almost everyone did because we wanted to win.

NELAX21 wrote:In high school we did the "Captains Practice" in california. I dont think it is bendng the rules at all. We wanted to play and we werent allowed to start practice until Feb so we would all get together JV and Varsity and have a big game. Our coach was never there and you didnt have to come, but the if you could come almost everyone did because we wanted to win.

The "bending the rules" comes when the coach says, "Guys, I want you to have captains practices, and I want you to cover these plays, and I want you to take attendance and pass that on to me."

Lets give you an idea... One of the best programs in Washington has 2 days of official practice & can travel to New England coming away with wins... They have the same off-season coach each year... every year... They know every play as the season starts... Teams are decided in the Fall, they don't participate with All-Star teams in the Summer... They're not true captains practices...

I have worked with a team in this light, & it's what they have to do to compete. We don't decide teams, we don't run a militant practice, but we give them the chance to get a leg up on their team-mates come tryouts. Would you love to start your MCLA season with a team that knew every ride, clear, play, EMO, & man-down to start the season? If players have other sports, they have others on the field to help them catch up... They don't require as much individual attention...

Kyle Berggren wrote:I have worked with a team in this light, & it's what they have to do to compete.

Personally, I would rather not "compete" and maintain some personal integrity than cheat just because "everyone else is doing it."