US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2020-2021 Women's Division I, II & III College Lacrosse Season

Yes, 2 per player with a negative Covid test within 72 hours

[
I dont see Louisville, best case scenario they finish 5-10. I like Towson or JMU instead.

Tough to use a teams “Record” in women’s lacrosse as a benchmark. Schedules are not created equal. I have not seen Louisville play so I will reserve judgment. Strength of schedule should always be considered when ranking teams. This year more than ever the selection committee has a challenging task. There will be some good teams left out, it’s just not an exact science.

In the last ten years there hasn't been a team, with a losing record, get an at-large bid. 3 or 4 teams with .500 record and all ACC teams.

As stated above, schedules are not equal and conferences aren’t equal either. ND has been bashed on this site repeatedly for their out of conference schedule being weak (which it has been). But the ACC is brutal, I’m sure some very good ACC, Big and even Ivy’s have been left out because their record wasn’t great.

Insanity! Doesn’t the stadium seat 10,000 + . 72 hours... another joke. What a shame.

Rankings are fun to look at and debate but it really does come down to the tournament. It will be fun to watch ACC and Big 10 Confere pretty sure they are playing each other twice during the season and then could potentially face the same team in their conference tournament and then again in the NCAA Tournament ....

CAA could get interesting , JMU, Towson, Hofstra, Drexel and Elon should all be completive in conference. Will anyone challenge Loyola and Navy in the Patriot league? Arizona State looks like they are heading in the right direction who will win The PAC 12?

Hofstra has no shot at CAA....

Will be interesting how committee seeds teams based on travel. Seeded teams might play better team based on geography. Im still curious if they add at-large in lieu of Ivies or eliminate one play-in game and put both teams in tourney.

With Covid so much will be geography based to avoid too much travel

Drexwl Vs Albany and Hofstra Vs Stony Brook on Thursday.

Just a thought. Take a look. This could be wrong. Not one Non revenue sport has played for a NCAA championship this year. Only Football and Basketball will crown a National Champion after March Madness is over. Fall sports are supposed to play this Spring but I don’t see anything officially scheduled. I see dates and locations but teams have been seeded or selected. They played conference championships only.

It’s a thought but it’s wrong . Track and field , wrestling and some others have competed for a national championship . No reason to think lax will not make it happen with the vaccines etc

Thanks for the response.
To use your logic that no one is “owed” anything then why were players granted additional eligibility due to the pandemic? They didn’t earn that eligibility. It was granted due to unforeseen circumstances. Right?
Further, all active roster players were given added eligibility regardless of whether they played or not or whether they “earned” it. Your logic would say that’s not appropriate. Right?
Lastly, I’m sorry your “blown away” by an opinion that’s shared by many within the lacrosse world. Hopefully things will return to normal soon and this great power grab will studied and seen for what it is.

I honestly thought this was a joke, you cant be serious, you honestly believe the freshmen class deserves another year of eligibility? What a ridiculous and utterly selfish thought!! What people in the lacrosse community agree with you? I have 2 daughters playing college and never heard anything of the kind. What happened precious is not getting enough recognition or playing time? Welcome to division 1 sports, your control over the HS AD and coach are over.

I don't know about their logic but all players are have five years to use their four years of eligibility to compete. I don't know why the NCAA made the decision that they made but you are using an apples and oranges comparison, I guess the NCAA felt that the "chance for players to compete" was taken away from them. Current freshmen (unless they are at an Ivy) have not had their chance to compete taken away.

As for the comment about being "blown away" and that many in the lacrosse world share the following opinion:

** "Since their ability to play may be taken away due to grads playing ahead of them?"**

The above opinion illustrates what is wrong with this sport... Parents think that their daughter is owed something, Just read the comments after an Under Armour Tryout or Selection. Parents complain that the tryout or selections are a joke and that the tryout was not fair.

There are freshmen on many teams who have earned playing time this season. Every year on every team there are players who do not earn playing time (freshmen, sophomore, juniors, seniors). Their ability to play was not "taken away" from them due to "grads" playing ahead of them. They all had / have the opportunity to earn playing time.

What will you say when your daughter is a Junior and the coach brings in a couple of stud freshmen who play over your daughter? Will you say "her ability to play was taken away" or will you say "the freshmen earned their playing time".

I'm not trying to be nasty, I just do not agree with the opinion.

C’mon, you can not actually believe what you are saying. Between this and the guy carrying on about the teams with the 5th year and Grad players I don’t even know where to begin or how to respond.

The NCAA announced Men’s Hockey Championship bracket a few days ago... Tournament set to begin March 26 .

You keep saying these players are not owed anything but they should be entitled to fair and equal treatment. The petition that was sent to the NCAA I believe pointed out that the spring freshman D1 athletes were the only current NCAA athletes who were not granted another year of eligibility.

Drexel over Albany by 5
Stony Brook over Hofstra by 10

I’m not sure why you say “you keep saying “ ... there are multiple people in this discussion.

Also, I am not aware of the petition that you referred to.

In any event, Why would current spring sport athletes who are competing be granted an additional year. They have not lost their season. I guess if The NCAA views this spring as an abbreviated season and the want to grant the additional year that is up to the NCAA. But that situation is far different than a player being granted an additional year of eligibility because other players beat them out for playing time.

The petition is being spearheaded by Hasselback's mother. The father is on TV and has a voice so would I be surprised if it happened - No. The NCAA does not lways make common sense decisions.

The extra year of eligibility should not be about 5th years and playing time. Does everyone realize that ALL D-1 fall and winter athletes this past year were granted an extra year of eligibility! They were granted an extra year before their season even started. Those fall and winter athletes completed modified seasons and even had championships. Even the March Madness basketball players we are watching on TV were given an extra year. Whether it was right or wrong to grant that extra year the NCAA should treat all D-1 athletes the same.

Why is it that the girls who put up a ton of points against lower level teams get all this hype and press? I know you can only play your schedule but a top HS team would give some of these teams a run for their money. You put in 8-10 goals and some assists against UNC, Cuse Northwestern then I can understand but the stat padding against clearly inferior teams is ridiculous.

I agree with this. Put up some points vs. a top 10 team, and I'm impressed, otherwise nobody cares, and anyone who follows the sport is aware of the shenanigans. I believe formula is used to rank players come time for AA nods based on strength of schedule. This garbage has been going on since HS!

Below is the 2019 Final Top 20 and How man All-Americans each team had.

1 - Maryland ----------- 7
2 - Boston College--- 4
3 - North Carolina---- 4
4 - Northwestern------ 3
5 - Syracuse------------ 1
6 - Princeton------------ 3
7 - Virginia--------------- 2
8 - Denver--------------- 2
9 - Notre Dame-------- 3
10 - Loyola--------------- 4
11 - Michigan------------ 0
12 - Stony Brook------- 1
13 - Florida-------------- 4
14 - Penn ---------------- 2
15 - JMU ----------------- 1
16 - Navy ---------------- 1
17 - USC ----------------- 1
18 - Georgetown------- 1
19 - Colorado------------ 1
20 - Dartmouth---------- 1

The following Teams were not ranked in the Top 20 at the end of the season but each had an All-American.

Duke, Hofstra and Towson.

I am not aware of any formula that is used but it certainly appears that how the Team performs plays a large roll in determining who is selected for All-American. I would also bet that the Top 10 Teams also have the toughest schedules.

A few things jump out at me... Michigan ranked 11th has no AA's. Loyola and Florida each have 4 AA's which is more than many teams that were better than them.

That’s some interesting analysis. Sounds like politics inserts it’s ugly head in at times!

Correction: Colorado had 0 All-Americans.

What is not fair about getting 4 years (seasons) of eligibility , Like everyone else ?

Obviously the Top Programs will have the most All-Americans as they tend to bring in the best players year after year.

19 - Attack
16 - Midfielders
10 - Defenders
3 - Goalies.... some really good goalies don't make it...

23 - Seniors
13 - Juniors
10 - Sophomores
1 - Freshmen
1 - Graduate Student

Do not know how many were true to class as apposed to a red-shirt...

There are probably more than 3500 players competing at the DI level earning recognitions as one of the Top 48 is pretty impressive.

To the cynical out there.... No, my daughter is not one of them.... : )

Read the quoted post again. Every D1 athlete except spring sports freshmen received a 5th year due to covid impact. So, to your point, it would be fair for them to receive what everyone else did.

Pretty sure the NCAA is still going to hold to their 5 year cap unless hardship or extenuating circumstances are involved.

Do you believe that a freshman who plays in every game this regular season, plays in their conference tournament and plays in the NCAA Tournament should still have 4 years of eligibility?

I personally don’t care if they do or they don’t. If the NCAA decides that they will grant it that’s ok by me.

Much different situation than people wanting their daughter to be granted an additional year because “she had her playing time taken away” ..... nobody’s playing time is being taken away ... players earn playing time.

I’m not sure what if anything should be done for players in the Ivy League. They actually had their entire season taken away.

Ivy league players all get an additional year of eligibility. They were informed of this recently.

I just don't know where this ends? If current freshmen are given an extra year, then why won't the next class deserve another year.. and then the one after that.... Every year we will have 5 classes of kids.

Seems like there are a lot of moving parts wit h “eligibility” questions. NCAA will have hands full sorting individual player circumstances out. Do Ivy players who were enrolled last spring have two additional years ?

I am aware of one Penn Grad who is currently playing for Duke believe she was an AA at Penn. Looks like many more around the country on the Men’s side. I think the situation with the Ivy’s could really benefit schools like Duke, Stanford, ND, Hopkins, Northwestern etc...

Yes, I do think spring sports freshman who play game 1 through conference and NCAA tournaments should be granted an extra year simply to be consistent with what was done for all fall and winter athletes, and spring athletes last year. The impact on spring freshmen has been just as significant even if they end up with a somewhat normal season. Most missed their entire senior season, fall ball, team bonding, and development during fall practices that were reduced or didn't even happen for some teams. Some freshman, even some top ranked who would be getting playing time, have already decided to redshirt this year because the NCAA did not act prior to the season beginning like they did for fall and winter sports. My kid will be fine either way, and I'm not sure would even use an extra year because she's not planning on a sports related career after college, but I do think the NCAA should be as consistent as possible with their policies. Agree that the "playing time being taken away" argument is not a valid reason.

I agree, and her daughter is getting playing time. Her argument is that her daughter lost her senior year of HS. My daughter lost her junior year and is getting a half-assed senior year. Needs to end now, no more extra years.

#6 Stony Brook eeking out a 4 goal win over a depleted Hofstra team is not a great result.. doesn’t bode well for the sea-wolves doing much come tourney time

Other athletes redshirt as freshmen because of the roles upperclassmen all of the time - football being the notable sport where it occurs. There was a setter at PSU volleyball that was a top 10 recruit and redshirt her freshman year because the then senior setter was a 4x AA that was the best setter in the nation. It happens all of the time even without injuries.

Not sure why this isn't talked about more in the lacrosse world...