Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

This Week's Leaders

Members of now receive 15% off at COMLAX.COM!

Hot Pot: Solving The Specialization Problem - One Rule

StaffStaff Boise & Brooklyn
edited March 2014 in Open Forum

imageHot Pot: Solving The Specialization Problem - One Rule

Lacrosse does have some issues, but almost all of them can be fixed with ONE SIMPLE CHANGE: Limit roster sizes to less than 20 player and you will see a change. I've seen it happen before, and it can happen again. We can keep tinkering with the rules, and distancing our game from its original inception, OR we can limit roster sizes and let the players play. It really is a simple choice.

Read the full story here


  • conlax14conlax14 Milford, MA
    I was thinking the same thing after reading Quint's article about the 5v5 or 4v4. I liked the intent, but saw holes immediately. An extra benefit you didn't touch on with smaller rosters: lower cost of entry for new programs. Outfit 30 guys instead of 50, only pay to fly or bus and feed 20 of them around for away games. At first, there would be fewer opportunities for HS athletes (maybe growing the recruiting camp and club team beast, ick) but that could grow over time if more schools add programs at a lower cost.
  • I still don't really get what the issue is with specialization. D-middies and faceoff guys provide ways for teams that aren't that strong to win games. Bryant would likely have lost by a much wider margin if it wasn't for the outstanding play of Kevin Massa and his wings. Faceoffs make the games more competitive and more exciting, so it makes sense to me to keep things as they are. I'd be interested to hear some other perspectives as well.
    Kevin Rowen
Sign In or Register to comment.