[/quote]


Stop being so dramatic and blaming these returning 5th years for all your issues. First off non of those programs are closing because seniors are coming back. It will have little impact on the 2020 class other than some getting less playing time . It will impact the 2022 -2023 class the most but honestly if your kid wants to play in college there is a spot for them. I have not heard of it but will be interesting to see if any college coaches decrease their offers to some of the 2021 players as they have not signed a NLI.
In the end there was going to be some unhappy players out there. The coaches wanted to do the right thing for their seniors and so did the ADs as these kids have given 3.5 years of their lives to the program and school while your high school player has given them nothing and may wash out .I commend their decision to stay loyal to the players that have stayed loyal to them.[/quote]

First of all, I'm not blaming any players or their families. The NCAA made a rule change, and they would be notIntelligent not to consider taking advantage of it if it benefits them. If I had a child in the same situation, I would tell her to consider it, too.

Second, these are not just my "issues." There are a lot of people who are in the same boat as me, and they may not even realize it.

My original point was that although people talk about how the NCAAA ruling adversely affects HS students (which it does), it adversely affects college players as well. Because there is a fixed of amount playing time in a game, a fixed amount of scholarship money (which is redistributed every year), and finite # of roster spots on any team, the NCAA ruling essentially results in a zero-sum game. If you look at the names of both male and female players who have transferred or are staying for their 5th year, it's easy to tell who the winners are and by extension who are the losers. I've heard that some men's lacrosse programs already have upwards of 4 5th year players on their roster for next year. Using the analogy of serving a pie, each 5th year player is akin to an extra mouth to feed. Judging by the lists generated so far, the 5th year players ALL look like they will be getting the biggest slices on the team; and as a result, the rest of the team will be getting substantially smaller slices. That doesn't seem very fair either.

I was OK for applying the NCAA ruling to the current college seniors, since they "lost" the most. But letting this situation occur every year for the next 4 years is excessive. Like the previous posters have opined, I don't think the NCAA thought out their decision very well when they made it. It was well-intentioned, but very flawed. It's impossible to make everyone whole.