Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
They are opening Pandora's Box if they try to implement their original proposal to give all spring athletes an extra year.
1. Introducing competitive imbalance among college teams
2. Increasing costs for all schools
3. Potentially hurting fellow college players with decreased playing time and scholarship money- especially those who are unable advantage of 5th year exception.
3. Inhibiting access to college sports for HS athletes (2022 and 2023).
4. Setting an unwanted precedent for the future. What happens if fall and winter sports are somehow also cancelled? Do these athletes also get the same treatment?



1) There is already a competitive imbalance ,how does this make it worse ?
2) So maybe they should limit roster size to 25 max at at schools if you are really concerned about the cost for schools
3) If you dont allow a 5th year you are definitely hurting college players with decreased playing time,not potentially.
3) (again) So I guess you are against growing the game or having inner city kids play as that might create too much competition for your kid
4) Its a good precedent and if your kid had her senior year taken from her or him you would want the opportunity
Its amazing you are a parent and have no empathy for what these college players are going thru. You are obviously the parent of a 2022 or 2023 player who is worried that they will not have a spot on a team and will miss out on their dream of playing in college . Not sure the answer to that is destroying the dream of some other kid. At least your kids dream is still under her control that has been taken away from these college players.



1. If your school is part of the Ivy League or Patriot League or your school does not have any graduate school programs, you now have a new competitive disadvantage against the other lacrosse programs who don't have the same restrictions.
2. Adding another season for NCAA spring sports is costly for many colleges. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ck-missed-eligibility-costly/2872197001/
3. The NCAA ruling only benefits college athletes who actually play their 5th year. That would be those athletes who are good enough to be wanted by coaches and have the funds from either the school or family to afford to stay. Everyone else on the team who plays for only 4 years is hurt with less playing time and potentially less scholarship money, since a larger roster means less playing time and less scholarship money to go around. An extreme case is the junior goalie who waited on the bench for the senior starting goalie to graduate. Now if the starting goalie decides to stay the extra year, the junior goalie loses the opportunity to play in a college game for his entire career. So not every college player benefits from the ruling.
3. Everybody who plays lacrosse lost their lacrosse season. HS players lost their entire varsity season and probably their club season too. College players lost about 2/3 of their college season. For the next 2 years, colleges will have to field enlarged rosters because they have already signed the 2020 class and accepted 2021 commits. For the 2022 and 2023 classes, there could be pressure to return the roster size back to their original size. However, current college players now have the option to stay for their 5th year for the next 4 years. Those 5th year players could essentially be taking spots that would go to a HS recruit. You aren't really growing the game because the # participants of college sports hasn't gone up. A minority of college players get to play longer and as a result there could be a net decrease of kids who get to play college sports.
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexre...uld-cancel-football-season/#3a2294db319d
If the NCAA fall sports season is cancelled, will the NCAA make those athletes whole like it did for spring sports? There are a lot more scholarship players and a lot more revenue from football teams than lacrosse teams. And if the fall season is cancelled, is it possible for the winter sports season to be adversely affected as well? That could be a lot money spent by universities who may no longer be able to afford it.

"Not sure the answer to that is destroying the dream of some other kid. At least your kids dream is still under her control that has been taken away from these college players."
How are you equating the college player's loss of 2/3 of a season (so now he/she gets to only play college sports for 3 2/3 seasons instead of 4) as more severe than the high school student's loss of an entire varsity season and club season? And because of the NCAA ruling, the HS student could be at a significant disadvantage in getting recruited to play college lacrosse and is at risk for missing out on playing any college lacrosse at all. The college player still gets to play college lacrosse for 91.7% of his/her expected college career, while the un-recruited HS student gets to play 0 college lacrosse. Since attending college is both an academic and athletic pursuit, the HS student potentially loses out in both his/her academic and athletic dreams. Losing 2/3 of a college lacrosse season isn't really affecting the college players academic prospects. If there is anyone whose "dream" is getting destroyed, I think it's the HS kid.

The NCAA ruling is effectively robbing Peter (the HS recruit) to pay Paul (the 5th yr college player). That's just my opinion, and it's ok for people to agree or disagree with it.


Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
They are opening Pandora's Box if they try to implement their original proposal to give all spring athletes an extra year.
1. Introducing competitive imbalance among college teams
2. Increasing costs for all schools
3. Potentially hurting fellow college players with decreased playing time and scholarship money- especially those who are unable advantage of 5th year exception.
3. Inhibiting access to college sports for HS athletes (2022 and 2023).
4. Setting an unwanted precedent for the future. What happens if fall and winter sports are somehow also cancelled? Do these athletes also get the same treatment?



1) There is already a competitive imbalance ,how does this make it worse ?
2) So maybe they should limit roster size to 25 max at at schools if you are really concerned about the cost for schools
3) If you dont allow a 5th year you are definitely hurting college players with decreased playing time,not potentially.
3) (again) So I guess you are against growing the game or having inner city kids play as that might create too much competition for your kid
4) Its a good precedent and if your kid had her senior year taken from her or him you would want the opportunity
Its amazing you are a parent and have no empathy for what these college players are going thru. You are obviously the parent of a 2022 or 2023 player who is worried that they will not have a spot on a team and will miss out on their dream of playing in college . Not sure the answer to that is destroying the dream of some other kid. At least your kids dream is still under her control that has been taken away from these college players.



1. If your school is part of the Ivy League or Patriot League or your school does not have any graduate school programs, you now have a new competitive disadvantage against the other lacrosse programs who don't have the same restrictions.
2. Adding another season for NCAA spring sports is costly for many colleges. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ck-missed-eligibility-costly/2872197001/
3. The NCAA ruling only benefits college athletes who actually play their 5th year. That would be those athletes who are good enough to be wanted by coaches and have the funds from either the school or family to afford to stay. Everyone else on the team who plays for only 4 years is hurt with less playing time and potentially less scholarship money, since a larger roster means less playing time and less scholarship money to go around. An extreme case is the junior goalie who waited on the bench for the senior starting goalie to graduate. Now if the starting goalie decides to stay the extra year, the junior goalie loses the opportunity to play in a college game for his entire career. So not every college player benefits from the ruling.
3. Everybody who plays lacrosse lost their lacrosse season. HS players lost their entire varsity season and probably their club season too. College players lost about 2/3 of their college season. For the next 2 years, colleges will have to field enlarged rosters because they have already signed the 2020 class and accepted 2021 commits. For the 2022 and 2023 classes, there could be pressure to return the roster size back to their original size. However, current college players now have the option to stay for their 5th year for the next 4 years. Those 5th year players could essentially be taking spots that would go to a HS recruit. You aren't really growing the game because the # participants of college sports hasn't gone up. A minority of college players get to play longer and as a result there could be a net decrease of kids who get to play college sports.
4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexre...uld-cancel-football-season/#3a2294db319d
If the NCAA fall sports season is cancelled, will the NCAA make those athletes whole like it did for spring sports? There are a lot more scholarship players and a lot more revenue from football teams than lacrosse teams. And if the fall season is cancelled, is it possible for the winter sports season to be adversely affected as well? That could be a lot money spent by universities who may no longer be able to afford it.

"Not sure the answer to that is destroying the dream of some other kid. At least your kids dream is still under her control that has been taken away from these college players."
How are you equating the college player's loss of 2/3 of a season (so now he/she gets to only play college sports for 3 2/3 seasons instead of 4) as more severe than the high school student's loss of an entire varsity season and club season? And because of the NCAA ruling, the HS student could be at a significant disadvantage in getting recruited to play college lacrosse and is at risk for missing out on playing any college lacrosse at all. The college player still gets to play college lacrosse for 91.7% of his/her expected college career, while the un-recruited HS student gets to play 0 college lacrosse. Since attending college is both an academic and athletic pursuit, the HS student potentially loses out in both his/her academic and athletic dreams. Losing 2/3 of a college lacrosse season isn't really affecting the college players academic prospects. If there is anyone whose "dream" is getting destroyed, I think it's the HS kid.

The NCAA ruling is effectively robbing Peter (the HS recruit) to pay Paul (the 5th yr college player). That's just my opinion, and it's ok for people to agree or disagree with it.


You should of signed it, “yours Truly, An angry parent who’s kid isn’t that good”