Youngest MDIA team?

[DG]

As I was checking out BYU's Roster of 39 players, I noticed a lot of Freshman. So I checked it out and found out that there are 18 Freshman,
11 Sophomores, 6 Juniors and 4 Seniors on the roster.

That's a grand total of 74% underclassmen. And I started to wonder if this is just unique to Provo, or if there are other programs around the country with a lot of underclassmen.

Can anyone shed light on the roster composition of their team (or their favorite team)? I'd be very interested to see who is the youngest MDIA team in the country.

For starters, I saw that Oakland is going to have somewhere near 20 freshman, so that sounds like a pretty high number...

DG

[Bluevelvet]

UCSB's 45 man roster has 14 freshman, 11 Sophmores and 6 Seniors (only 3 seniors will get significant PT).
Not as young as BYU but very young compared to the last 2 years.

[Dan Wishengrad]

Our roster this Fall has two 5th-year Seniors (who might or might not play in the Spring), 1 Senior, 2 Juniors, 7 Sophs and about 20 Freshmen. We get one other Senior back for the Spring who is studying abroad this Fall. I'm guessing this is the one of the youngest squads around, and certainly the youngest we have had in my 7 years at Washington.

[CPLaxGM]

This is a general trend that I have watched develop over the past five years on our own squad, and I would bet that rosters are generally getting younger and younger across the USLMDIA. It may not apply to every team in the country, but I am guessing that a lot of teams are under similar circumstances. BYU's situation is obviously different from most other teams (because of the mission after freshman year), but here's my theory on why so many teams in general have such young teams these days.

With the increased competition level that has developed as the USL-MDIA has expanded during these past five years or so, a lot of teams have gotten much more serious about their programs. The committment level necessary to play has increased, and with that, the dues required to be on a squad have greatly increased. So you have a lot of kids that played in HS and figure that they will continue to play in college on the "club" team. They come out for a year or two, but if they aren't a key player (e.g. either a starter or someone who sees significant PT) than it may not be worth it to them to commit the time, energy, and money necessary to play on a quality MDIA squad. So a lot of guys that would have possibly played on a true club team, fade away after a couple of years because the commitment is too high if they have only a marginal role on the team (and sometimes the commitment is too high even if they would have started on the team). It's unfortunate really, and I certainly try and find other ways to motivate these type of players, but the reality is that many of them simply end up walking away after a year or two.

In our case, we only had 4 seniors (or fourth year players to be more technically accurate) each of the last three seasons (all key contributors), and it looks like we will have only 4 again this year. We also only have five third year players, but we have 12 second year players and close to 20 first year players (although a few of those are transfers and not true freshman). So you may have an odd year where you have a big group of seniors (like UCSB last year), but my guess is that teams with a large percentage of freshman and sophomores is a trend that will continue for quite a while, especially among the programs that require a lot of financial and time commitments.

[LaxC21]

I haven't seen the official roster, but I have heard that A&M had about 25-30 freshman with playing experience come out this fall. Someone might confirm that...but that would go along the lines of what other teams have mentioned above.

[jimh3983]

Our average player age is 19.5

[LaxDude]

They come out for a year or two, but if they aren't a key player (e.g. either a starter or someone who sees significant PT) than it may not be worth it to them to commit the time, energy, and money necessary to play on a quality MDIA squad. So a lot of guys that would have possibly played on a true club team, fade away after a couple of years because the commitment is too high if they have only a marginal role on the team (and sometimes the commitment is too high even if they would have started on the team). It's unfortunate really, and I certainly try and find other ways to motivate these type of players, but the reality is that many of them simply end up walking away after a year or two.

That hits everything right on the nail. Freshman and Sophomores generally have no other commitments. Then when they become Juniors and Seniors, you generally see academics, internships, and partying interfere.

Unfortunately, not everyone can be a starter. Some players who work their butt off day in and day out and do not see the field very much get easily discouraged. I'd point out that back-ups are as important as starters. For a competitive team, your starters need to face formidable players at practice to simulate the opponent. Next, individuals get hurt and coaches really need to develop players for the following year. Look at Joe DiMaggio and Steve Young.

Its kind of a strange trend occurring in club lacrosse all over. Instead of seeing classes receiving experience every year with a culmination of a senior laden team dominating, we're starting to see basically freshman and sophomores shouldering the loads.

[Bluevelvet]

What you say may be true for the average MDIA teams, but the top contenders have been teams laden with seasoned seniors and juniors.
Examples are UCSB the last few years, Sonoma in 2002, CSU annually etc.

There seem to be cycles of really good teams in the MDIA. I thought that 2002 with Stanford, Cal, Sonoma, UCSB, CSU, Arizona and Michigan, & Auburn was the most talented year for the MDIA tournament in St. Louis. All of those teams were dominated by upperclassmen except Michigan. Anyone of those 7 teams could have won (maybe not Auburn). The last few years it has been the big 4 or 5, with only 4 or 5 teams with a realistic chance to win.

It seems as though there are alot of young teams this year. It remains to be seen whether these teams are any good. My guess is that they will be inconsistant. I predict that the teams with large numbers of returning players will be there at the end, not the teams that play alot of freshmen.

[grinderpete]

What you say may be true for the average MDIA teams, but the top contenders have been teams laden with seasoned seniors and juniors.
Examples are UCSB the last few years, Sonoma in 2002, CSU annually etc.
I thought that 2002 with Stanford, Cal, Sonoma, UCSB, CSU, Arizona and Michigan, & Auburn was the most talented year for the MDIA tournament in St. Louis.

Forget anyone Blue? I know it is tough to forget about us in Provo. But I thought the cougs had a pretty stellar team that year. Losing to SSU by 3 i believe in the semi's and then in double OT vs your beloved Gauchos.

just a thought.

[Bluevelvet]

Sorry, you are right BYU was one of the top teams that year. How could I forget! The double OT game with UCSB in the National Consolation game was a classic! Eight or nine teams could have won it all that year. That meant that there were no potential blowouts in the quarter finals. And in fact, there were were 2 simultaneous OT quarter final games (AZ v. SSU and Stanford v. CSU). That was a very tough tournament.
Since that year, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, and Auburn have fallen and no one has risen to their previous level. I think there were fewer teams in 2002, so the talent was more concentrated and it may just have been one of those cycles where there were alot of good players that were all around the same age.
What seems to be happening now is that lacrosse has become much more popular at the high school and junior's level. There are alot more good individual players coming out of high school. The challenge seems to be in assembling a good enough team to hold these young players together until they learn how to play at the next level. I have noticed out here in NorCal that some great high school players seem to stagnate and not improve in college unless they are associated with good coaching, good competition and a good organization.

[Danny Hogan]

There are alot more good individual players coming out of high school.

that combined with the heightened development (legitimacy) of teams #10-50 attracts higher caliber recruits/classes that are good enough to play right away.

I wonder if 2-3 years from now we will be seeing all these kids on the other end of their eligibility and if the apparent age discrepancy will balance out.