US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season

No NESCAC conference games or conferences championship to be played. Seasons are over.

Ivy League cancels all spring sports.

Patriot League too!

CAA too.

ACC too

NCAA just killed the season

IAAM too

Remaining NESCAC teams officially called it quits today.

The economic impact just from this niche sport is huge. Think of all the hotels, food establishments, bus companies etc that will not be involved with getting the players, from all divisions to and from away games. Even add a kicker to the parents that traveled to these games. Then add in all the other spring sports. This is a huge source of income for the Marriot Courtyard type places that vanished.

IWLCA/StringKing Players of the Week – March 10, 2020



The IWLCA has chosen six NCAA student-athletes for the IWLCA/StringKing Player of the Week awards for the week of March 2 – March 8, 2020. This weekly award recognizes the best offensive and defensive performances by payers in Division I, II, and III each week during the regular season.
DIVISION I


Offensive Player of the Week

Ally Kennedy – Stony Brook University

Kennedy led the Seawolves to an 18-12 victory of #11 Princeton, and a 13-8 win against Towson last week. Kennedy scored a season-high six goals against Princeton, and four against Towson. The senior midfielder added an assist, 22 draw controls (15 against Princeton), and five ground balls in the two games, as Stony Brook moved up to #5 in the IWLCA Division I Coaches Poll.

Defensive Player of the Week

Molly Dougherty – James Madison University

Dougherty made a season-high 14 saves (10 in first half) in the Dukes 16-6 win over #21 Penn State last week. The junior goalkeeper finished the week with .645 save percentage, 5.92 GAA, five ground balls, and one caused turnover as #14 James Madison also defeated Rutgers by a 16-5 score.
DIVISION II


Offensive Player of the Week

Abbi O’Neal – Grand Valley State University

O’Neal helped lead the Lakers to wins over then #3 Lindenwood, 16-13, and Maryville, 17-5. Against Lindenwood, the senior attacker scored a game-high seven goals, while adding an assist and four draw controls. In the Maryville game, O’Neal totaled six points, two ground balls, once caused turnover and nine draw controls. The 2-0 week saw Grand Valley State jump to #10 in the latest IWLCA Division II Coaches Poll.

Defensive Player of the Week

Brittany Iamele – Florida Southern College

Iamele notched 10 saves in a dominating upset victory over then #6 Regis, 17-5. Iamele came off the bench for the Mocs and limited the Rangers to just one goal over the final 44 minutes of the game. The junior goalkeeper also made an appearance against Wingate and allowed one goal in 15 minutes between the pipes. Iamele picked up the victory against Regis and also chipped in with three ground balls and a caused turnover last week, as Florida Southern remained ranked seventh in the IWLCA Division II Coaches Poll.
DIVISION III


Offensive Player of the Week

Katherine Faria – Washington and Lee University

Faria, a sophomore attacker, led the Generals with seven goals and one assist last week. She totaled the seven goals on just 11 shots (.636 shooting percentage). Against third-ranked Gettysburg, Faria totaled four goals on six shots, as Washington and Lee upset the Bullets, 12-9, and moved into the top five, landing at #4 in the latest IWLCA Division III Coaches Poll.

Defensive Player of the Week

Caitlin Anderson – Washington and Lee University

Anderson totaled 10 draw controls, nine ground balls and nine caused turnovers last week. In the Generals’ 16-5 win over Christopher Newport, the senior defender had seven draw controls, six caused turnovers and three ground balls, while only playing about 75 percent of the contest and followed that up with six ground balls, three caused turnovers and three draw controls in a 12-9 win against third-ranked Gettysburg. The Bullets came into the contest averaging 16 goals per game, and the W&L defense, led by Anderson, held Gettysburg to seven goals below their season average.
About StringKing: StringKing has been innovating the game of lacrosse since 2011. StringKing was the first company to create a full-mesh pocket in the women’s game. Since then, they have expanded their offerings to include quality, high-performing sticks for every level from youth leagues to the pros. StringKing is an official equipment supplier of over 500 college programs across the US, numerous world lacrosse national teams, and is an official sponsor of the Women’s Professional Lacrosse League where they work with the very best players in the game.

Has anyone heard if there is a possibility that the NCAA will grant a 5th year of eligibility to players whose collegiate careers were cut short due to the cancelling of their seasons . It seems to me it would be the right thing to do .

That's only part of the problem with a sport like lacrosse. They would have to also extend the 12 scholarship limit since there is a freshman class coming in. They need to increase that number next year or else they couldn't give money to freshman, increase scholarship money to current players, etc.

I don’t see NCAA allowing a red shirt season to seniors even though it seems the right thing to do. There are so many other moving parts to this issue. One, the NCAA would have to allow more than the 12.6 scholarships right now as senior money is now spent on incoming freshmen, and schools would have to agree to fund this if NCAA gave the approval. There essentially would be five recruiting classes at once not four. I am sure some parents would view as freshmen losing a year(lol these are lax parents). The roster size would grow back to 45 girls. Some schools, like Ivy do not allow this size. Three, the incoming freshmen letter of intents would need to released to allow a kid to change mind if they wanted to based on roster size and no player movement.

These are just a few of the topics that would need to be discussed. Suspend season, and skipping three weeks(hopefully Corona passes) would probably been a better first step.

Even though I feel right thing to do, I don’t think the NCAA will do it.

How many seniors would realistically take another full year in college, especially those who weren't already planning a grad school year? Starters at top 10 programs? Especially those at non-public schools who might be paying a good chunk of tuition each year.

Do coaches want to keep their all of their seniors around when they have fresh kids coming in? Probably a select few from each senior class.

I think after the rush of emotions wear off, most seniors will want to graduate and move on. And I would expect most coaches would encourage them to do so.

NCAA is granting the extra year

Yes. But everything quoted is still a consideration.

The NCAA should allow 3 more additional
Scholarship for seniors only. Only seniors get the extra year. The other classes move up to next year as normal.

After next year these three scholarships go away and things get back to normal. If they give all players another year you bring many more issues into the equation, mainly 5 recruiting classes into a 4 year “system”.

I think this will make most happy. It is bad situation so at least this helps a little.

I didn’t see a specific mention that the extra year is just for seniors. Does that mean all spring athletes get the potential to play an extra year?

I agree 100%. It's unfair that many girls will miss one year, but other than the seniors they still have more college lax. The 2020 class would essentially be sharing their 4 years with 5 years worth of teams, all 4 years if everyone gets extended.. Many of them will have lost out on their high school senior year as well. It's a tough situation, but if schools are graduating double digit scholarship players in any given season, how are they to do it? How many kids can afford an extra year just for lacrosse anyway?

Not going to happen , all the current players will be given the chance at a 5th year under their current scholarship , the 5th year not counting toward the 12.6 they are allowed meaning the 2020 , 2021 get screwed but the 2022 get it the worst I think

Many moving parts to this that have to be considered. I guess Letter of intents would also be cancelled if a 2020 student athlete didn’t want to go to that school anymore. As stated above recruiting classes coming in would have to be adjusted for next four years because of roster sizes.

Does anyone know who is on the NCAA Council of Communication and Coordination who announced this extra of eligibility program? Is it AD, coaches?

Let’s hope the Team in charge of this makes a good decision.

And why do guess letters of intent could be cancelled. All you 2020 parents need to calm down. It is what it is. See you all in 2020 fall ball.

I also think that this should only apply to seniors this year as long as they stay at the current University...otherwise you may have quite a few one year players moving around from team to team

If a player redshirted during their college career and was a Red Shirt Senior did those players receive scholarship money for that 5th year ?
If not and you are saying that a current freshman now can get a 5th year with scholarship money it seems unfair to all those kids in the past who missed out on a year due to injury. If my daughter was a freshman this year and was now guaranteed a 5th year I'd be encouraging a major with a 5 year masters.
If you are a senior this year I think it's OK based on the abruptness of it all, but for the rest of the college classes you still have more lacrosse left. You are going to college to get an education first, lacrosse second. You are getting the education. Isn't that the end game?

It’s an unprecedented and unfortunate situation for all athletes/spectators at all levels/sports. Specifically regarding NCAA Women’s lacrosse (and all spring sports) an extra year of eligibility is the right decision. If a senior graduates from said university, but doesn’t want to pursue a master’s at said university, then they should have some choices. What’s the big deal? Yes this does mix up the rosters, playing time, scholarships, etc., but think about the players whose season was cut short that possibly had high hopes and aspirations. Amen to those level headed folks that are not being so selfish. Stay healthy and remain supportive to our less fortunate.

Just make it a senior thing with no transferring for those seniors who take the extra year. Least amount of disruption, and doing right thing. Most people will be a happy.

Health of country is the main focus.

I do not agree that the extended year of eligibility should only apply to seniors.

The problem is universal meaning in a normal playing career you have 4 years of NCAA athletic eligibility. The cancellation of the season provides roughly 3.25 years of eligibility to everyone, not just seniors (this season about +/-25% of games were played).

If you only apply to Seniors they would be the only ones to receive the 4 full years of eligibility with everybody else getting about 31/4 years. How does changing the rules for seniors only remedy the situation? All years were impacted equally so why shouldn't the resolution apply equally?

Lots of moving parts with budget, scholarships, roster size, potential cuts to underperforming players, underclass transfers, HS recruits who have not signed LOI, getting into a program that is totally different than what you thought and coaches reevaluating verbal offers vs signed recruits. Crazy time with no great answers going to be interesting to see what happens.

Best solution for all is just to NOT give anyone an extra year.

I think giving it only to seniors would be a fair solution. Senior year is special and being able to end your career on the field win or lose is something that they would all be able to achieve if the extra year is given only to the seniors.Giving an extra year to all players would be unfair to the recruiting classes that have not yet entered college and an undo burden to Universities and coaches.

Why? is it because you think your kid will continue to lose playing time?
I have a senior who lost her final semester, lacrosse season and most likely her graduation ceremony.. believe me it was hard.. even though she will be eligible she will most likely not take it. she doesn't play for a team who would have competed for the NCAA title or even a place in the tournament, but they had a shot at their conference playoff.. and for most programs that's the goal.. make your conference playoff, win a game, make the conference final win the conference.. its a lot harder to do then you think.

think about the seniors from North Carolina of Notre Dame.. who had a realistic shot of winning the whole thing.. you're gonna say they dont deserve another shot... please

This situation is not just about lacrosse. It's not about what the players "deserve". A lot of people around the world are going to be dealing with a whole lot of stuff that they don't deserve for a long time to come. Not just the thousands of student athletes impacted, most significantly the seniors.

Allowing a blanket policy of an extra eligible year could cause a huge downstream effect for years, with a bigger impact on post-college plans in sports other than lacrosse. Sports where professional leagues pay millions (Baseball, basketball, hockey).

Or maybe not. I think that once the dust settles, only a small group of lacrosse players and their families will pursue another season. Those who intend to go to grad school, and those who are in contention to do something really special on a nationally competitive scale. Kids/families who are going to pay a big chunk of private school tuition for a 5th year at school, when they could graduate in 4, are unlikely to stick around for another year on a team that is not one of those teams. You say yourself that that is likely to be your decision. And does every coach want every senior back for another year???

That's how I feel. The goal is to get a college education in four years. Seniors I understand because of what they miss out on as a whole, but everyone else is still going to have more lacrosse to play. No one is giving back the graduations kids lose out, the High School seasons lost. Many people will be impacted, not just athletes. By adding an extra year to every class the ripple effect extends for years. This isn't about playing time, just Allow the Seniors who are pursuing Masters or Doctorates to continue with their one year, if they choose.

This isn't just about lacrosse. Offering an extra year of eligibility to every spring athlete is a huge financial burden on schools if they expand the number of scholarships for each sport. Adding 3 additional scholarships per sport is over 100k per school per sport on average and considering none of these sports make the schools money why would they do this? I know some coaches have already talked to their seniors and told them they would love to have them back, but that there won't be any scholarship money for them.

Perhaps offer additional playing year to everyone but for those wishing to play for a "5th year" there are no scholarships?

Done this way, it gives the eligibility for everyone impacted but athe players financial responsibility for those wanting to play a 5th year (reducing numbers as a result of cost). This still provides a full 4 year playing opportunity and most important reduces the downstream trickle down effect. That would be fair with less long term impact and these seniors never planned on being able to play or receiving money anyway.

There is no great answer as all classes current and future are tied to one another but something has to give. I believe this to be fair and equitable as you can be without penalizing anybody (the seniors weren't planning on scholarship money or even playing so it would be found money and eligibility anyway at their cost).

Thoughts?

I don't see it as a financial burden on the schools. It's not like they're paying out cash to the athletes, they're just not collecting from them. And if they didn't have the extra year of eligibility they wouldn't be coming back to school. So money-wise it's really just an extra body on campus and on the team. The bigger impact is if the scholarship numbers stay the same and the money has to be redistributed with the incoming players - but still doesn't cost the school any more or less.

The burden when you give everyone an extra year falls disproportionately on the 2022 class. The 2021 class is already largely committed, but the 2022's will lose a ton of scholarship money AND more importantly roster spots. Even if 10% of the current college sophomores take a fifth year, that's 10% less spots available - equal to losing 10 plus college PROGRAMS. These high school sophomores have also lost an ENTIRE year of lacrosse why should they be impacted doubly?

I'm all for there to be limited relief for college seniors and even those who are not seniors if they can show that they lost big opportunity by a fifth year returning (e.g., the junior goalie who now has a 5th year goalie returning) but to take away 10% (conservatively) of the roster spots for the 2022 kids is simply absurd.

Exactly and if they increase enrollment by several dozen, most of these players are not getting full scholarships. The schools will actually collect more money as the incremental cost is low.

It will be interesting to see how many non-Ivy 2020, 2021 and 2022 players will red-shirt.

Will be interesting to see how many DI non-Ivy players in the 2020, 2021 and 2022 classes will red-shirt...

I wonder if this will have a big impact on the 2021s? Many of them have verbally committed but as we all know a verbal is not binding. They have not signed their LOI yet so there’s nothing to say their offers might change. It’s a crazy time all around for all athletes.

Inside Lacrosse Pre-Season High School top 52 players, here are the colleges for 51 of them (1 undecided). College/2020/2021/Total:

Stanford 4 / 5 / 9
Florida 4 / 1 / 5
Virginia 4 / 1 / 5
Maryland 2 / 2 / 4
Penn State 4 / 0 / 4
UNC 3 / 0 / 3
BC 1 / 1 / 2
Princeton 1 / 1 / 2
Notre Dame 2 / 0 / 2
Hopkins 1 / 1 / 2
USC 1 / 1 / 2
Harvard 2 / 0 / 2
Villanova 0 / 1 / 1
Yale 1 / 0 / 1
Stonybrook 1 / 0 / 1
Syracuse 1 / 0 / 1
Duke 1 / 0 / 1
Michigan 1 / 0 / 1
Ohio State 1 / 0 / 1
Georgetown 0 / 1 / 1
Va Tech 1 / 0 / 1