Stay Home, Save Lives - #FlattenTheCurve

BACK OF THE CAGE
MOST RECENT POSTS
Boys High School
by Anonymous. 06/01/20 08:27 PM
Boys 2023-9th Grade Fall 2019/Summer 2020
by Anonymous. 06/01/20 06:22 PM
New England Prep School Lacrosse
by Anonymous. 06/01/20 05:02 PM
Long Island Express Lacrosse
by Anonymous. 06/01/20 04:58 PM
Boys 2026 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region
by Anonymous. 06/01/20 03:57 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics2,026
Posts264,942
Members2,184
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
SUBSCRIBE


FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 32 of 43 1 2 30 31 32 33 34 42 43
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300820
03/31/20 10:12 AM
03/31/20 10:12 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
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.

Originally Posted by Anonymous
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.

It’s not 1/2 a season it 2/3. People are getting unemployment without a waiting week. Unemployment with help from the federal government has jumped $600. A simultaneous package giving people and businesses money has been passed, and all this is a good thing to help out in this time of need. So why can’t these amazing students athletes get some help as well?

Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300822
03/31/20 11:08 AM
03/31/20 11:08 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



"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.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300823
03/31/20 11:12 AM
03/31/20 11:12 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



"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.
Originally Posted by Anonymous
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.


Move on its done, your everyone should suffer motto is pathetic. I assume you also are against the money the government is using to try and help with the relief fund.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300861
04/01/20 08:58 AM
04/01/20 08:58 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Big names entering the Transfer Portal

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300869
04/01/20 10:53 AM
04/01/20 10:53 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Big names entering the Transfer Portal


Although I want to know who I was surprised that Inside lax sent out a few of the names .

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300876
04/01/20 12:36 PM
04/01/20 12:36 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



The NCAA should have never allowed transfer from current school if you wanted 5th year as a senior. All should have stayed as it was when season started in Jan first practice. Isn’t this fair.

Also do any of these team records stand? Or does this season just disappear like it never happened from a win/loss stand piont? Some kids were having incredible seasons..so they lose all these points, saves, take aways etc.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300880
04/01/20 01:11 PM
04/01/20 01:11 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #300883
04/01/20 02:20 PM
04/01/20 02:20 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.


This may not just be seniors...what about this years freshman or sophomore who now has 3 or 4 years left. A freshman played 7 games for a team/coach they are not a good fit in, or perhaps they did not get on the field but know they can somewhere else. They enter the transfer portal and they have 4 years left. This edict can have numerous ramifications

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300891
04/01/20 03:58 PM
04/01/20 03:58 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

I think your wrong, The players who elect to transfer or stay at their existing school for a 5th year will have not much money left to be had and honestly the coaches who offer money to these 5th years will only be coaches of teams in position to win that year otherwise it was just a waste of resources . Further it will only be the real impact players that get offers , a coach would be foolish to offer money to a player who would only help them for one year only to lose out on a player that would help them the next 4.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300894
04/01/20 05:10 PM
04/01/20 05:10 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

I think your wrong, The players who elect to transfer or stay at their existing school for a 5th year will have not much money left to be had and honestly the coaches who offer money to these 5th years will only be coaches of teams in position to win that year otherwise it was just a waste of resources . Further it will only be the real impact players that get offers , a coach would be foolish to offer money to a player who would only help them for one year only to lose out on a player that would help them the next 4.


At my daughters school the girls are being invited back with the same or larger scholarships than they had

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300896
04/01/20 05:21 PM
04/01/20 05:21 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



A 5th year player is "battle-tested" against other collegiate athletes for 4 years and is at the peak of her athletic and lacrosse abilities. She is only a 1 year commitment, which could also be a good thing.

A HS school is recruited solely based on a future projection against fellow HS students.. She will not arrive on campus for 2 years.
She realistically won't be able to contribute and help her team for 3-4 years. Of course, coach's projection of this prospect is only a guess.
She may not meet lacrosse expectations. She could become an academic risk. She could also become a 4 year headache with her teammates and coaches.
She could even drop out of the team or transfer somewhere else. Assuming she even meets their highest expectations, the coach who recruited her may no longer be around to reap the benefit.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300898
04/01/20 05:38 PM
04/01/20 05:38 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

I think your wrong, The players who elect to transfer or stay at their existing school for a 5th year will have not much money left to be had and honestly the coaches who offer money to these 5th years will only be coaches of teams in position to win that year otherwise it was just a waste of resources . Further it will only be the real impact players that get offers , a coach would be foolish to offer money to a player who would only help them for one year only to lose out on a player that would help them the next 4.


At my daughters school the girls are being invited back with the same or larger scholarships than they had

Can’t. Be larger. But nice try to lax people off. Oh, and by the way, my daughter will be a grad student playing next year. So please don’t be a donk and try and lax people off.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300900
04/01/20 06:47 PM
04/01/20 06:47 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

I think your wrong, The players who elect to transfer or stay at their existing school for a 5th year will have not much money left to be had and honestly the coaches who offer money to these 5th years will only be coaches of teams in position to win that year otherwise it was just a waste of resources . Further it will only be the real impact players that get offers , a coach would be foolish to offer money to a player who would only help them for one year only to lose out on a player that would help them the next 4.


At my daughters school the girls are being invited back with the same or larger scholarships than they had


You are a joke

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300902
04/01/20 07:45 PM
04/01/20 07:45 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I think more players will stay for their 5th year (or transfer to another program) than people are predicting.
If so, there will be major repercussions on playing play time and scholarships (after next year) for the college teammates behind them.

I think your wrong, The players who elect to transfer or stay at their existing school for a 5th year will have not much money left to be had and honestly the coaches who offer money to these 5th years will only be coaches of teams in position to win that year otherwise it was just a waste of resources . Further it will only be the real impact players that get offers , a coach would be foolish to offer money to a player who would only help them for one year only to lose out on a player that would help them the next 4.


At my daughters school the girls are being invited back with the same or larger scholarships than they had

Can’t. Be larger. But nice try to lax people off. Oh, and by the way, my daughter will be a grad student playing next year. So please don’t be a donk and try and lax people off.


Depends on the school and the AD. My daughters school has extra money they are able to give. Fact. Big schools=big money. Read the language in the NCAA agreement and you’ll see that there are extra monies available.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #300904
04/02/20 03:34 AM
04/02/20 03:34 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



https://www.uslaxmagazine.com/colle...e-coaches-react-to-ncaa-d-i-council-vote
https://www.insidelacrosse.com/arti...-the-ncaa-eligibility-ruling-mean-/56237


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 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.

US Lacrosse Magazine
"Not all conferences will implement the eligibility relief equally, if at all.

Michael Sowers’ decision to withdraw from Princeton so he could put off graduating until next year would imply that he and other Ivy League athletes don’t have tremendous faith in the conference relaxing its rules to allow graduate students to compete in sports.

The Patriot League would also have to consider the competitive disadvantage service academies Army and Navy would encounter if other schools in the conference, like Loyola, are allowed to leverage the NCAA rule in ways they can’t. "

Inside Lacrosse
"First, the haves win out over the have-nots. I don’t see a way around this, so it’s a concern without offering a solution. College is expensive, and though the scholarship situation for returning fifth-years could help, so few are on full rides that most who want to come back to play will have to incur a significant tuition expense. Players who come from wealthier families will have a much easier time affording another year of college than those from a middle-class background. And also, it might not be wise to go into more debt in this economic climate. At a program level, ones that are more invested in the sport and better-positioned financially will be able to increase roster sizes, incur those expanded scholarship costs and maybe even be “active” on the transfer market. Will the smaller schools fall further behind?"


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 THE MONEY FOR THE SCHOOL IF YOU ARE SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE MONEY COLLEGES MUST SPEND.

US Lacrosse Magazine
“Being an equivalency sport and realizing there are some other sports that generate a whole lot more revenue, we certainly had enough time to look at the financial implications and the expenses involved every student-athlete came back,” Tillman (U Maryland HC) said. “We’ve gotten some of those numbers, and they’re significant.”
“Next year is going to be the bigger issue, when you have a true five-class run,” Galloway said. “You’ve got to figure out your books on those guys.”
"Though the NCAA will allow teams to surpass the scholarship threshold to accommodate returning seniors in 2021, it’s hard for coaches to imagine currently cash-strapped universities allotting additional funding for their programs. Even in trying to build a schedule for next year, Galloway said, opposing coaches have become reluctant to commit to a trip to Jacksonville because their travel budgets have been slashed."


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.

Inside Lacrosse
"Of course, seniors are not the only ones impacted by this decision, they just are impacted the most due to the fork in the road that is college in its entirety. Freshmen across the country were told that they would not play as a freshman, with the depth that the team currently has it just isn’t in the cards. NOW THOSE SAME PLAYERS WHO WERE HIGHER ON THE DEPTH CHART ALL HAVE THE OPTION TO RETURN AND ANCHOR THE TOP OF THE DEPTH CHART, perhaps patience wears thin and the grass becomes greener on the other side."

"But what is on everyone’s mind is the longer-term consequences. Incoming freshmen will have their scholarships, and current sophomores and juniors who want to play in their fifth years will obviously want scholarship money (that will count against the 12 or 12.6). SOMEONE WON"T GET IT."

US Lacrosse Magazine
"There’s also the question of roster size. I DON'T THINK I WOULD CARRY MORE THAN 48 PLAYERS. I know that I can provide a very good experience for 48 players,” Tierney said. “One person for every locker, travel, equipment — once we start to getting into the 50s, now we’re not traveling everybody. Guys may be sharing lockers. I don’t think that’s a Division I lacrosse experience.”


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 SPOTS AT THE MOST HIGHLY COMPETITIVE SCHOOLS GET A LITTLE MORE COMPETITIVE, MAYBE.

US Lacrosse Magazine
"Galloway anticipated Jacksonville would RETAIN ABOUT HALF OF ITS EIGHT SENIORS (other coaches have estimated to be in the 20- to 30-percent range) while having room to grow with potential transfers and the incoming freshman class. Looking to avoid a logjam, however, HE SAID HE LIKELY WOULD PUT A PAUSE ON RECRUITING NEXT YEAR'S HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS. The Dolphins currently have five verbal commitments from the class of 2021, according to Inside Lacrosse’s database."

Inside Lacrosse
"In my opinion, this could and likely will have a large impact on the recruiting landscape for the next few years. Will that vary program to program, based on who intends on using their additional year of eligibility? Absolutely. "
"THIS IS WHERE I SEE THIS LEGISLATION AFFECTING, IN PARTICULAR, THE CLASSES OF 2021 (they have not signed NLIs yet; their scholarship amount discussed during the commitment period ultimately could be changed at the discretion of that coach), 2022 AND 2023. Ultimately, will a coach RECRUIT A SMALLER CLASS IN THAT TIME FRAME to balance the fact that they might now have their All-American freshman attacker or standout All-ACC goalie for longer than initially anticipated? Scholarship and roster size aside, I think it will also affect how coaches go about recruiting these classes positionally, as well; what are their needs?"
"How are YOUNGER HIGH SCHOOL AND CLUB PLAYERS feeling in regard to all of this? Honestly, I THINK MANY ARE PANICKED, BUT THIS IS ENTIRE OUT OF THEIR CONTROL. The only thing they can control is the work they put in on and off the field, and ultimately in the classroom. "

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.

US Lacrosse Magazine

"And while it might seem like the big-budget ACC and Big Ten schools are best positioned to retain their stars and even expand their rosters, those institutions were the ones hit hardest by the cancellation of the NCAA basketball tournament and loss of TV money. That’s not to mention what would happen if the public health crisis continues into the fall and compromises the college football season."

"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 LEVE OTHERWISE YOU WOULD SEE GIVING THESE NCAA PLAYERS BACK WHAT TAKEN FROM THEM IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

I am not saying the college players weren't victims - they were. Every athlete at every level of the sport is a victim of this pandemic. Of course, every athlete deserves another chance to play their game if possible. All I'm saying is that the solution to help the NCAA athletes could wind up hurting a lot of high school athletes if a lot of college players take their 5th year exception; and as a result, crowd out the younger classes coming up. Even among the college athletes, the only beneficiaries are the players who are able to take advantage of the 5th year exceptions; and the college athletes who can't (and leave after 4 years) could indirectly suffer. Since the NCAA has already rendered its decision, it's time for everyone to move along and try to make the best of it

Reply Quote
Page 32 of 43 1 2 30 31 32 33 34 42 43
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification





Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1