I knew you couldn't resist. And in your emotional attempt to slag CESA, you left yourself open.
Of the 24 commitments, actually 16 are to Division I schools. Here are those schools: PC (3), Georgia Southern (1), USC (2), CofC (3), Coastal Carolina (3), Southern Cal (1), Gardner-Webb (1), UNC Wilmington (1), Furman (1). I don’t know where 7 came from.
Again, CESA averages about 27 commitments per year. There are players on the second teams who are signing national letters of intent. I don’t think a club can have this many players commit and not be considered the best option.
As for players staying in state, a lot of that has to do with non-athletic scholarship money. I don’t think you can fault anyone for that. Just because a player stays in state, that doesn’t mean that it was the only offer they had.
There are players who came to CESA late in their careers and Lexington certainly should take some credit for helping those players. But, a big part of development is playing with higher-level players and the players that came over were aged out and certainly were surrounded by higher-level players at CESA. Why didn’t they go to the Bridge?
What other clubs offer what CESA offers for its players? I think this is what Sweet, Bear, and I are referring to. Does it mean that Bridge or DSC hasn’t had players to commit? No. But, go back and look at last year or the year before and tell me what you find out in regards to college signings.
You make these judgements about CESA and then hide behind the “do what is best for your kid” statement. In the same breath, you promote Bridge. Again, if CESA weren’t taking care of their top players and second team players, why would players from all over continue to drive to CESA? How could second team players sign NLI?
Take your lip service to I26 and see what those folks tell you.
