Stay Home, Save Lives - #FlattenTheCurve

BACK OF THE CAGE
MOST RECENT POSTS
Long Island Express Lacrosse
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 11:08 PM
CHAMINADE Lacrosse. Stories and news.
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 10:10 PM
Boys 2026 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 09:18 PM
Boys 2025-7th Grade Fall 2019/Summer 2020
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 06:08 PM
Boys 2026-6th Grade Fall 2019/Summer 2020
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 03:07 PM
Girls High School
by Anonymous. 05/28/20 01:48 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics2,023
Posts264,848
Members2,183
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
SUBSCRIBE


FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 38 of 43 1 2 36 37 38 39 40 42 43
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302191
05/20/20 05:00 PM
05/20/20 05:00 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Well you sound silly, girls who gave 3.5 years to a program or school, yet transfer to another, that’s got me
Confused! You still want to argue how this is ok to the girls who were at that school for 3.5 years waiting to play and now won’t! Hm guess it depends what side of the fence you are on how one might feel about this.

Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302192
05/20/20 05:11 PM
05/20/20 05:11 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



I still believe the NCAA got it wrong by extending the fifth year across all 4 classes. It should have only been available to this years senior class. In hindsight This decision was made a bit too hasty.. as it looks like covid-19 will be effecting the fall athletic programs also.. Will the NCAA follow its own president and give a fifth year to 4 classes of soccer and football this season as well?.. this decision has and will continue to create an untenable ripple effect..not only for athletes but coaches,assistants,trainers etc..

Dont be surprise if this 5th policy is altered again in some way.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302194
05/20/20 05:30 PM
05/20/20 05:30 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



[/quote]


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

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

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

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

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

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302198
05/20/20 07:39 PM
05/20/20 07:39 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A




The Syracuse Women’s Lacrosse Team just announced they are returning 10 of 11 seniors for next year.
I never thought any team would keep so many players, and I
wonder how the rest of the Syracuse team feels about the news.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302200
05/20/20 09:29 PM
05/20/20 09:29 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
All of those girls who are staying another year or who are transferring to other schools are basically taking playing time and potential scholarship money away from the other girls (younger) already on the team.


Not if the younger girl(s) are better, there will always be obstacles in life and sports. Sorry your little princess can’t overcome them.



Here you go again with your inane and offensive remarks. Of course, nothing you have posted has turned out to be accurate.

Let's look at the list of girls (that we know of) who have transferred or stayed for their 5th year of eligibility for next year.

UNC: Kerrigan Miller (USC), Katie Hoeg
Syracuse: Emily Hawryschuk, [ChillLaxin] Goldstock
Duke: Gabby Rosenzweig (Penn)
Ohio State: Kelsey Reed (JMU), Mary Kate Bonanni (Cornell)
Northwestern: Sammy Mueller (Virginia)
Michigan: Quinn Melidona
Penn State: Maria Auth
Georgetown: Natalia Lynch
Loyola: Holly Lloyd, Meaghan Quinn
Stony Brook: Katie Huff (USC), Ally Kennedy, Kylie Ohlmiller

What do all of these girls have in common? They were all the best players on their teams this spring. Many were pre-season 2020 All-American candidates or were All-Americans last year. Even a great player like Caroline DeBellis (entering freshman) is probably going to lose playing time next year to Gabby Rosenzweig at Duke.

This probably doesn't matter to your daughter for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. Your daughter is All-American caliber already.
2. Your daughter plays for a non-competitive program where players are unlikely to stay an extra year or transfer there.

My guess is #2.



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


Except that whole coach and player loyalty goes out the window with the transfers.


No ,actually it makes it shows the coaches and ADs have more of a commitment to do the right thing for these seniors who have given all they have for their schools and programs . They supported what was in the best interest of their players even if those players decide to transfer .

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302201
05/20/20 09:35 PM
05/20/20 09:35 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Well you sound silly, girls who gave 3.5 years to a program or school, yet transfer to another, that’s got me
Confused! You still want to argue how this is ok to the girls who were at that school for 3.5 years waiting to play and now won’t! Hm guess it depends what side of the fence you are on how one might feel about this.


You really are on the slow end of the scale. It’s difficult to try and understand your point .”The girls that were at the school for 3.5 years .....,” what are babbling about . If a girl has been at a school waiting to play for 3.5 years and now won’t has nothing to do with seniors returning .

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302202
05/20/20 11:08 PM
05/20/20 11:08 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
All of those girls who are staying another year or who are transferring to other schools are basically taking playing time and potential scholarship money away from the other girls (younger) already on the team.


Not if the younger girl(s) are better, there will always be obstacles in life and sports. Sorry your little princess can’t overcome them.



Here you go again with your inane and offensive remarks. Of course, nothing you have posted has turned out to be accurate.

Let's look at the list of girls (that we know of) who have transferred or stayed for their 5th year of eligibility for next year.

UNC: Kerrigan Miller (USC), Katie Hoeg
Syracuse: Emily Hawryschuk, [ChillLaxin] Goldstock
Duke: Gabby Rosenzweig (Penn)
Ohio State: Kelsey Reed (JMU), Mary Kate Bonanni (Cornell)
Northwestern: Sammy Mueller (Virginia)
Michigan: Quinn Melidona
Penn State: Maria Auth
Georgetown: Natalia Lynch
Loyola: Holly Lloyd, Meaghan Quinn
Stony Brook: Katie Huff (USC), Ally Kennedy, Kylie Ohlmiller

What do all of these girls have in common? They were all the best players on their teams this spring. Many were pre-season 2020 All-American candidates or were All-Americans last year. Even a great player like Caroline DeBellis (entering freshman) is probably going to lose playing time next year to Gabby Rosenzweig at Duke.

This probably doesn't matter to your daughter for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. Your daughter is All-American caliber already.
2. Your daughter plays for a non-competitive program where players are unlikely to stay an extra year or transfer there.

My guess is #2.



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


Except that whole coach and player loyalty goes out the window with the transfers.


No ,actually it makes it shows the coaches and ADs have more of a commitment to do the right thing for these seniors who have given all they have for their schools and programs . They supported what was in the best interest of their players even if those players decide to transfer .


Sorry, I think you’re naive about this. Both coaches and players are not acting for the greater good or the interest of the player. Looking at the trends in both the men’s and women’s lacrosse programs, these are all merely business decisions. Coaches are picking players on their own rosters or from elsewhere SOLELY on the basis of whether that player can help him/her win more games. That’s why no role players appear on any list. Meanwhile, players are staying at their schools or transferring elsewhere for their own personal reasons. Based on the large number of transfers that many schools are accepting, there is no loyalty to the school on either side. It’s just like professional sports, and the NCAA has empowered seniors (at least those good enough to be coveted) to be free agents.

The only possible exception is Syracuse. But if Gary Gait feels that this year’s entire senior class deserves to play another year, then his entire junior class deserves the same treatment next year; since they won’t truly be seniors next year having sat behind this year’s seniors again. And by extension, he should keep all of his sophomores in 2 years, and his freshmen in 3 years. We’ll see if that happens.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302203
05/21/20 06:32 AM
05/21/20 06:32 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



It is correct that players can start to make money for there likeness starting spring 2021? So if top players mentioned above want to sign a deal with Nike Or STX they can? From what I read this is true as long as no college name or branding? Can they use STX or Nike sticks if they want to versus what the school may use based on an agreement?

Does anybody have any detailed knowledge on this rule?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302204
05/21/20 08:21 AM
05/21/20 08:21 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous

The Syracuse Women’s Lacrosse Team just announced they are returning 10 of 11 seniors for next year.
I never thought any team would keep so many players, and I
wonder how the rest of the Syracuse team feels about the news.



Didn't Syracuse just bump up tuition by 10 K?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302206
05/21/20 09:24 AM
05/21/20 09:24 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Well you sound silly, girls who gave 3.5 years to a program or school, yet transfer to another, that’s got me
Confused! You still want to argue how this is ok to the girls who were at that school for 3.5 years waiting to play and now won’t! Hm guess it depends what side of the fence you are on how one might feel about this.


You really are on the slow end of the scale. It’s difficult to try and understand your point .”The girls that were at the school for 3.5 years .....,” what are babbling about . If a girl has been at a school waiting to play for 3.5 years and now won’t has nothing to do with seniors returning .


As usual the Quote button would have helped but I think you might be the slow one if you couldn't follow along. The poster you replied to was responding to the quote below, saying the girls who "have given 3.5 years to the program" are not being loyal to that program if they are transferring somewhere else. And pretty sure he/she meant that some of the players who were at a particular school for 3.5 years waiting to play will be losing that playing time to the 5th year seniors who are transferring in.

"In the end there was going to be some unhappy players out there. The coaches wanted to do the right thing for their seniors and so did the ADs as these kids have given 3.5 years of their lives to the program and school while your high school player has given them nothing and may wash out .I commend their decision to stay loyal to the players that have stayed loyal to them."

Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302207
05/21/20 09:40 AM
05/21/20 09:40 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Syracuse tuition was increased by $421 from last year.

"For academic year 2019-2020, undergraduate tuition & fees at Syracuse University is $53,849"

"2020-2021 Cost of Attendance of Students Enrolled after Fall 2018
Direct (billable) costs
Tuition $54,270"

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302239
05/22/20 12:51 PM
05/22/20 12:51 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A






Here you go again with your inane and offensive remarks. Of course, nothing you have posted has turned out to be accurate.

Let's look at the list of girls (that we know of) who have transferred or stayed for their 5th year of eligibility for next year.

UNC: Kerrigan Miller (USC), Katie Hoeg
Syracuse: Emily Hawryschuk, [ChillLaxin] Goldstock
Duke: Gabby Rosenzweig (Penn)
Ohio State: Kelsey Reed (JMU), Mary Kate Bonanni (Cornell)
Northwestern: Sammy Mueller (Virginia)
Michigan: Quinn Melidona
Penn State: Maria Auth
Georgetown: Natalia Lynch
Loyola: Holly Lloyd, Meaghan Quinn
Stony Brook: Katie Huff (USC), Ally Kennedy, Kylie Ohlmiller

What do all of these girls have in common? They were all the best players on their teams this spring. Many were pre-season 2020 All-American candidates or were All-Americans last year. Even a great player like Caroline DeBellis (entering freshman) is probably going to lose playing time next year to Gabby Rosenzweig at Duke.

This probably doesn't matter to your daughter for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. Your daughter is All-American caliber already.
2. Your daughter plays for a non-competitive program where players are unlikely to stay an extra year or transfer there.

My guess is #2.
[/quote]


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

Except that whole coach and player loyalty goes out the window with the transfers.
[/quote]

No ,actually it makes it shows the coaches and ADs have more of a commitment to do the right thing for these seniors who have given all they have for their schools and programs . They supported what was in the best interest of their players even if those players decide to transfer .[/quote]

Sorry, I think you’re naive about this. Both coaches and players are not acting for the greater good or the interest of the player. Looking at the trends in both the men’s and women’s lacrosse programs, these are all merely business decisions. Coaches are picking players on their own rosters or from elsewhere SOLELY on the basis of whether that player can help him/her win more games. That’s why no role players appear on any list. Meanwhile, players are staying at their schools or transferring elsewhere for their own personal reasons. Based on the large number of transfers that many schools are accepting, there is no loyalty to the school on either side. It’s just like professional sports, and the NCAA has empowered seniors (at least those good enough to be coveted) to be free agents.

The only possible exception is Syracuse. But if Gary Gait feels that this year’s entire senior class deserves to play another year, then his entire junior class deserves the same treatment next year; since they won’t truly be seniors next year having sat behind this year’s seniors again. And by extension, he should keep all of his sophomores in 2 years, and his freshmen in 3 years. We’ll see if that happens.[/quote]


Actually you are the one being naive or ill-informed . First off the lists you are seeing are who inside lacrosse picks to highlight so of course it will be the impact players. The schools I know of have said to their seniors that they are all welcome to return but the financial end of it is up the the school administration. The vast majority of the programs have coaches who have been extremely loyal to their seniors inviting them back even when not a starter ,Cuse is more the normal than the exception in this regard.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302241
05/22/20 03:11 PM
05/22/20 03:11 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Ok, I stand corrected; but give us some examples where the coach really invited everyone back on the team.

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: TheBackOfTheCage] #302242
05/22/20 03:58 PM
05/22/20 03:58 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Simply put, they should allow every girl 3.5 years going forward. That would be fair. If it’s okay for Senior to Freshman get 3.5, it should be fine for all the incoming players....right?

Reply Quote
Re: 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season [Re: Anonymous] #302244
05/22/20 07:00 PM
05/22/20 07:00 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A



Everyone getting 3.5 years, that's fine with me. Sign me up.

Reply Quote
Page 38 of 43 1 2 36 37 38 39 40 42 43
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
CAPTCHA Verification





Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1