"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.

Wrong again , thats up to that conference ,they can adjust their rules and most likely will. Also that competitive disadvantage of not allowing grad school players has always existed for those conferences

2. Adding another season for NCAA spring sports is costly for many colleges. https://www.usatoday.com/story/spor...ck-missed-eligibility-costly/2872197001/

They are not adding a season and yes sports ,especially womens sports are costly for many colleges ,so why not only allow sports that make money for the school if you are so concerned about the money colleges must spend.

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.

Wrong again ,the current seniors who come back for a 5th year will not have their scholarship count toward the 12 allowed so has no impact on incoming scholorships.Your extreme case is ridiculous as the junior goalie can now take a 5th year so problem solved.


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.

There is virtually a spot for every high school player who has any skill to play in college and more programs are opening every year. Will the spots at the most highly competitive schools get a little more competitive, maybe.

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.

What the what? Not even worth responding to except to say the NCAA has made billions of dollars off of unpaid student athletes .

"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."

Your math is terrible and your logic is non existent. Again if your high school player is not competitive enough to get recruited because a couple of players are taking a 5th year it was most likely not the school for them and it happens all the time with players who get injured earlier in their career. I wish there was a way for the high school athletes to get their seasons back, especially the seniors .Seems to me you have never played a sport at a high level otherwise you would see giving these NCAA players back what was taken from them is the right thing to do.