Stay Home, Save Lives - #FlattenTheCurve

BACK OF THE CAGE
MOST RECENT POSTS
Boys 2026 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region
by Anonymous. 05/31/20 02:27 PM
Boys 2025-7th Grade Fall 2019/Summer 2020
by Anonymous. 05/31/20 12:23 PM
Girls 2023-9th Grade Fall 2019/Summer 2020
by Anonymous. 05/31/20 09:29 AM
Boys High School
by Anonymous. 05/29/20 11:00 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics2,026
Posts264,889
Members2,184
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
SUBSCRIBE


FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 31 of 43 1 2 29 30 31 32 33 42 43
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300751
03/29/20 10:48 AM
03/29/20 10:48 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Would this work?

Why not give everybody the additional 4th year, allow an expansion of roster size and create a new limited underclass schedule to allow advancement of skills and playing time for growing players given the larger roster size might impact incoming recruits playing time (kind of like a pysdo JV or practice squad).

These underclass games could be played locally with other schools to minimize travel, cost and impact and players could be bumped up and down as needed. It also could be used as a practice squad much like the NFL but still keep underclass players engaged and growing to help the team and for those upper class not playing playing time as well.

Everything else stays the same and everybody gets their full 4 years. This should be somewhat budget neutral other than limited travel and refs but again if local, within an hour or two drive, should not be big deal. I think the coaches would love a place to help grow players rater than have them sit.

Responses?

Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300755
03/29/20 11:28 AM
03/29/20 11:28 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Would this work?

Why not give everybody the additional 4th year, allow an expansion of roster size and create a new limited underclass schedule to allow advancement of skills and playing time for growing players given the larger roster size might impact incoming recruits playing time (kind of like a pysdo JV or practice squad).

These underclass games could be played locally with other schools to minimize travel, cost and impact and players could be bumped up and down as needed. It also could be used as a practice squad much like the NFL but still keep underclass players engaged and growing to help the team and for those upper class not playing playing time as well.

Everything else stays the same and everybody gets their full 4 years. This should be somewhat budget neutral other than limited travel and refs but again if local, within an hour or two drive, should not be big deal. I think the coaches would love a place to help grow players rater than have them sit.

Responses?

Tooth fairy is this you?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300757
03/29/20 11:55 AM
03/29/20 11:55 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



It sounds like a great idea. What about certain players getting more $$ based on having better ability. How will that play out with my incoming freshman scholarship amount and schools that do not offer graduate schools?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300765
03/29/20 07:59 PM
03/29/20 07:59 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
It’s done, they have the extra year. It’s the particulars that need to be finalized. Can you transfer, scholarship money, roster size...


Not true

D1 council agreed that eligibility relief is appropriate. On the 30th, that’s this Monday, they will finalize all the rules that will apply.


That's not true. It was a subcommittee that stated they determined that an extra year for all spring athletes was appropriate. The NCAA D1 Council has not said anything at this point and votes on Monday.


Wrong again , that subcommittee was in contact with the NCAA D1 Council and asked to release a statement on behalf of the NCAA . The NCAA has contacted all the D1 coaches and informed them that a so called 5th year of eligibility will be granted , it’s the details that have not been decided . The reason the made the decision so quickly is they wanted to comfort the seniors and not have them feeling horrible that they would never play the sport they love again , unlike you who seems to enjoy trying to make them feel horrible .


As I was saying, the D1 Council has agreed to nothing. Reports are things are going sideways. Schools won’t have the money to support this

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ot-a-slam-dunk-as-ncaa-prepares-to-vote/

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300766
03/29/20 08:05 PM
03/29/20 08:05 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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?

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300768
03/29/20 09:13 PM
03/29/20 09:13 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Would this work?

Why not give everybody the additional 4th year, allow an expansion of roster size and create a new limited underclass schedule to allow advancement of skills and playing time for growing players given the larger roster size might impact incoming recruits playing time (kind of like a pysdo JV or practice squad).

These underclass games could be played locally with other schools to minimize travel, cost and impact and players could be bumped up and down as needed. It also could be used as a practice squad much like the NFL but still keep underclass players engaged and growing to help the team and for those upper class not playing playing time as well.

Everything else stays the same and everybody gets their full 4 years. This should be somewhat budget neutral other than limited travel and refs but again if local, within an hour or two drive, should not be big deal. I think the coaches would love a place to help grow players rater than have them sit.

Responses?

Tooth fairy is this you?


This is a joke - right?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300779
03/30/20 10:50 AM
03/30/20 10:50 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



This post seems like a very reasonable and good idea to deal with a unique problem with no one "fix all" answer.

Just curious why the thoughtless negativity with no details or thoughts on why this would not help the situation. I personally like it and think it makes a lot of sense but don't understand why you are saying it is a joke.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300780
03/30/20 10:59 AM
03/30/20 10:59 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
This post seems like a very reasonable and good idea to deal with a unique problem with no one "fix all" answer.

Just curious why the thoughtless negativity with no details or thoughts on why this would not help the situation. I personally like it and think it makes a lot of sense but don't understand why you are saying it is a joke.


This is a joke right?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300782
03/30/20 11:18 AM
03/30/20 11:18 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Exactly this is a joke, is a joke.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300789
03/30/20 02:36 PM
03/30/20 02:36 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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.

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300795
03/30/20 06:55 PM
03/30/20 06:55 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
It’s done, they have the extra year. It’s the particulars that need to be finalized. Can you transfer, scholarship money, roster size...


Not true

D1 council agreed that eligibility relief is appropriate. On the 30th, that’s this Monday, they will finalize all the rules that will apply.


That's not true. It was a subcommittee that stated they determined that an extra year for all spring athletes was appropriate. The NCAA D1 Council has not said anything at this point and votes on Monday.


Wrong again , that subcommittee was in contact with the NCAA D1 Council and asked to release a statement on behalf of the NCAA . The NCAA has contacted all the D1 coaches and informed them that a so called 5th year of eligibility will be granted , it’s the details that have not been decided . The reason the made the decision so quickly is they wanted to comfort the seniors and not have them feeling horrible that they would never play the sport they love again , unlike you who seems to enjoy trying to make them feel horrible .


As I was saying, the D1 Council has agreed to nothing. Reports are things are going sideways. Schools won’t have the money to support this

https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ot-a-slam-dunk-as-ncaa-prepares-to-vote/

As I was saying granted it!!!!! Just the particulars

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300797
03/30/20 07:01 PM
03/30/20 07:01 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
It’s done, they have the extra year. It’s the particulars that need to be finalized. Can you transfer, scholarship money, roster size...


Not true

D1 council agreed that eligibility relief is appropriate. On the 30th, that’s this Monday, they will finalize all the rules that will apply.


That's not true. It was a subcommittee that stated they determined that an extra year for all spring athletes was appropriate. The NCAA D1 Council has not said anything at this point and votes on Monday.


Done ,

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300804
03/31/20 02:14 AM
03/31/20 02:14 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300811
03/31/20 08:58 AM
03/31/20 08:58 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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”

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300817
03/31/20 09:21 AM
03/31/20 09:21 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



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.


I completely agree. People are losing jobs, losing lives, losing everything right now. Nobody is giving anything back to them. This is hard for everyone, college athletes losing out on 1/2 season of sports should take all those things into perspective. The main goal is to get a degree, they will still get that. I suspect many kids will move on and not use that option, but this cure is worse than the problem, literally.

Reply Quote
Page 31 of 43 1 2 29 30 31 32 33 42 43
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification





Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1