Get it on Google Play
Get it on App Store
Get it on Google Play Get it on App Store
BACK OF THE CAGE
MOST RECENT POSTS
Girls 2024 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region
by Anonymous - 11/23/20 09:31 PM
Boys 2026 Grads - Mid Atlantic Region
by Anonymous - 11/23/20 08:06 PM
Girls 2025-8th Grade Fall 2020/Summer 2021
by Anonymous - 11/23/20 08:02 PM
Boys High School
by Anonymous - 11/23/20 07:44 PM
Long Island Yellow Jackets Lacrosse
by Anonymous - 11/23/20 07:09 PM
Forum Statistics
Forums19
Topics2,140
Posts277,497
Members2,224
Most Online62,980
Feb 6th, 2020
SUBSCRIBE


FOLLOW US ON TWITTER
Previous Thread
Next Thread
New Reply
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 10 of 16 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 15 16
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313215 10/23/20 05:33 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Sorry questionable selection is ridiculous . Unethical , political , embarrassing but questionable gives it a chance at being legit . Simply put there is no way to justify this selection and puts a stain on the reputations of all involved. Let’s also realize her Inside Lax ranking along with her UA senior AA may also have been just as political , not sure those accolades add up with never being named US lax AA especially when her high school coach has obviously a lot of pull .

Another hater trying to diminish a players accomplishments. I have not seen a single post of anyone trying to justify the selection but have noticed some post attacking the player and attempting to tear the player down and belittle her accolades.
Typical jealous parent who hates it when someone other than their daughter is recognized.

This selection was certainly questionable but there is absolutely no reason to make cowardly attacks. I guess there will always be haters who hide behind their keyboard attacking young women and trying to elevate their daughter by tearing down others.

"Typical jealous parent and cowardly attacks" Yes mom and dad, you are right. 21 year old super star college NCAA First Team All-Americans who have proven themselves are jealous of little Sally who has done nothing in high school and not played a college game yet. They are upset because they earned it and were passed on due to your daughters coaches politics. Stop lecturing us and just say thank you to your coach and move on. Politics happen.

Are you that dense? Nobody said that a 21 year old NCAA 1st Team All-American was jealous... Oh, and BTW... it is highly unlikely that the parents of the player in question are on here responding to your nonsense.

I think the point of the post that you are responding to was that "nobody" (except the people who made the decision) agrees with the selection. Some of us just don't see the point of trying to knock the player (because she did not select herself). You have made it personal and continue to attack the player as having "done nothing" in her HS career (which is obviously false). You are obviously bitter and that's okay. Personally, I just don't like reading anonymous, unsubstantiated attacks on players.

Like Reply Quote
BACK OF THE CAGE SPONSORS

Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313246 10/24/20 07:32 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
“Are you that dense? Nobody said that a 21 year old NCAA 1st Team All-American was jealous... Oh, and BTW... it is highly unlikely that the parents of the player in question are on here responding to your nonsense.

I think the point of the post that you are responding to was that "nobody" (except the people who made the decision) agrees with the selection. Some of us just don't see the point of trying to knock the player (because she did not select herself). You have made it personal and continue to attack the player as having "done nothing" in her HS career (which is obviously false). You are obviously bitter and that's okay. Personally, I just don't like reading anonymous, unsubstantiated attacks on players.”


Your bitter /jealousy response is ignorant. If they had selected an actual deserving player people would not be saying anything about the selections . Again you try to justify the selection by using questionable and saying the “people who made the decision “ actually agree with it when in fact the person ( Spallina) knows it’s unethical but just does not care because he has enough sycophants like you telling him how wonderful he is .
As far as the parents being on here I can guarantee that’s more likely than a player who has not played an actual lacrosse game in 22 months ,has never played a college game ,never been a US lax AA, never the best player on her team and did not make the U19 team getting an invite to tryout for the women’s national team .

As far as what you personally like no one cares and saying unsubstantiated just shows your lack of a grasp of the English language .

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313259 10/24/20 11:46 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
“Are you that dense? Nobody said that a 21 year old NCAA 1st Team All-American was jealous... Oh, and BTW... it is highly unlikely that the parents of the player in question are on here responding to your nonsense.

I think the point of the post that you are responding to was that "nobody" (except the people who made the decision) agrees with the selection. Some of us just don't see the point of trying to knock the player (because she did not select herself). You have made it personal and continue to attack the player as having "done nothing" in her HS career (which is obviously false). You are obviously bitter and that's okay. Personally, I just don't like reading anonymous, unsubstantiated attacks on players.”


Your bitter /jealousy response is ignorant. If they had selected an actual deserving player people would not be saying anything about the selections . Again you try to justify the selection by using questionable and saying the “people who made the decision “ actually agree with it when in fact the person ( Spallina) knows it’s unethical but just does not care because he has enough sycophants like you telling him how wonderful he is .
As far as the parents being on here I can guarantee that’s more likely than a player who has not played an actual lacrosse game in 22 months ,has never played a college game ,never been a US lax AA, never the best player on her team and did not make the U19 team getting an invite to tryout for the women’s national team .

As far as what you personally like no one cares and saying unsubstantiated just shows your lack of a grasp of the English language .

She is a good player, she wouldn’t be playing at SBU if she wasn’t. However, to get an invitation for a try-out for this team is questionable at best. She has not done anything to prove she earned this, while many others have. I guess the saying, “it’s not what you know it’s who you know” stands true in this situation.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
TheBackOfTheCage #313264 10/24/20 12:39 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
The focus needs to be on Spallina, Levy and Frank. They are the coaches and the select the kids with final say. Selection committee is I am sure a bunch of no names. At the end the coaches have no ethics or didn’t do the job of review.

Some better be careful of where they currently are at right now. The Gtown program fell off the rails when RF decided to coach USA, and asst lost her job at BU. Takes a ton of time away from regular duty at their school. History will tell you not good combination

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313269 10/24/20 02:02 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
B
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
B
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? That makes no sense. Then every sport would be playing using those protocols. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing a lot football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.

Last edited by baldbear; 10/24/20 03:01 PM.
Like Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
baldbear #313275 10/24/20 03:03 PM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? So if the soccer programs came to to the athletic director and president of a school with the same "work arounds and protocols" they would be playing? That makes no sense. Then everyone would be playing. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Oh really. ..,. Wrong.....See you should have googled before you answered. ....NCAA study in 2019 found only 20 of 1,000 college football teams were profitable. Many lower conference football is being played. Now..... do your homework and find out how many college basketball programs are profitable. The # will surprise you.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313323 10/24/20 10:19 PM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
B
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
B
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? So if the soccer programs came to to the athletic director and president of a school with the same "work arounds and protocols" they would be playing? That makes no sense. Then everyone would be playing. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Oh really. ..,. Wrong.....See you should have googled before you answered. ....NCAA study in 2019 found only 20 of 1,000 college football teams were profitable. Many lower conference football is being played. Now..... do your homework and find out how many college basketball programs are profitable. The # will surprise you.

There are 674 collegiate football programs; 257 Division I, 167 Division II and 250 Division III. The "study" you note highlighted the top 20 most profitable programs as the result of legislation in some states to pay players (California leading the way). The 20th team made $28 million; I don't think #21 was in the red. Football is the number one generator of revenue which is passed along to other sports programs (for the Big East its basketball). The vast majority of D1 programs are profitable but here is the 20 noted in the 2019 NCAA report (which was not a "study"; each school must report to the NCAA the revenue and expenses for every sport every year):

Texas – $92 million
Tennessee – $70 million
LSU – $58 million
Michigan – $56 million
Notre Dame – $54 million
Georgia – $50 million
Ohio State – $50 million
Oklahoma – $48 million
Auburn – $47 million
Alabama – $46 million
Oregon – $40 million
Florida State – $39 million
Arkansas – $38 million
Washington – $38 million
Florida – $37 million
Texas A&M – $37 million
Penn State – $36 million
Michigan State – $32 million
USC – $29 million
South Carolina – $28 million

Basketball has more games but lower margins so again, most D1 programs are profitable. Louisville is the perennial #1 in this regard with profits over $40 million.

EDIT-You may be referencing the NCAA Annual report which represents 1,100 schools and ALL sports.

Last edited by baldbear; 10/24/20 10:29 PM.
Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
baldbear #313336 10/25/20 07:37 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? So if the soccer programs came to to the athletic director and president of a school with the same "work arounds and protocols" they would be playing? That makes no sense. Then everyone would be playing. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Oh really. ..,. Wrong.....See you should have googled before you answered. ....NCAA study in 2019 found only 20 of 1,000 college football teams were profitable. Many lower conference football is being played. Now..... do your homework and find out how many college basketball programs are profitable. The # will surprise you.

There are 674 collegiate football programs; 257 Division I, 167 Division II and 250 Division III. The "study" you note highlighted the top 20 most profitable programs as the result of legislation in some states to pay players (California leading the way). The 20th team made $28 million; I don't think #21 was in the red. Football is the number one generator of revenue which is passed along to other sports programs (for the Big East its basketball). The vast majority of D1 programs are profitable but here is the 20 noted in the 2019 NCAA report (which was not a "study"; each school must report to the NCAA the revenue and expenses for every sport every year):

Texas – $92 million
Tennessee – $70 million
LSU – $58 million
Michigan – $56 million
Notre Dame – $54 million
Georgia – $50 million
Ohio State – $50 million
Oklahoma – $48 million
Auburn – $47 million
Alabama – $46 million
Oregon – $40 million
Florida State – $39 million
Arkansas – $38 million
Washington – $38 million
Florida – $37 million
Texas A&M – $37 million
Penn State – $36 million
Michigan State – $32 million
USC – $29 million
South Carolina – $28 million

Basketball has more games but lower margins so again, most D1 programs are profitable. Louisville is the perennial #1 in this regard with profits over $40 million.

EDIT-You may be referencing the NCAA Annual report which represents 1,100 schools and ALL sports.


Cmon.... you went with the Athnet stats that didn’t mention EXPENSES. Sooo... I will give a few...

Texas-revenue-$224M. Expenses-$205M
Texas A&M-rev $212M. Expenses-$170M
Ohio State-rev-$210M. Expenses-$221M
Michigan-rev-$198M. Expenses-$191M
Georgia-rev-$174M. Expenses-$143M
Penn State-rev-$164M. Expenses-$160M
Alabama-rev-$164M. Expenses-$185M

I won’t list all 227 listed by NCAA.

Anyhow NCAA study admits that the college accounting Fromm school to school is not uniform.

Now ...... you have proven my point. There are 893 college football programs spanning Div 1, Div 2, Div 3, NAIA, NJCAA. On low side say 20 are PROFITABLE that represents approx 2%. Let’s say 40 are PROFITABLE that represents 4%. We can continue with the simple math. But the facts are most football programs don’t turn a profit. The statement that these football programs bankroll all the other sports programs at a college is just false except for a small percentage.

You can google numerous articles about why have college sports. As you can see approximately 95% of colleges subsidize their athletics. Why??? To summarize here are a few reasons
Enrollment-many non student athletes choose a college because of game day social activity
Branding-school spirit and fan loyalty
Long term fan support and alumni camaraderie.
Sense of unity and pride among fans and alumni.
Revenue
Overall student experience.

This conversation began with football finding a way to play within the current covid nonsense rules. football found a way to play and it should be a template for other college sports to find a way to play. As indicated above college athletics touches many students other than the student athlete. In addition colleges recruited athletes of all sports to come to their college. College admin and AD’s should be finding ways to play not sit on their hands and tell student athletes sorry... season cancelled. Again... football did.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
baldbear #313346 10/25/20 09:30 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? That makes no sense. Then every sport would be playing using those protocols. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing a lot football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Quoting a New York Times article does not help your case.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313352 10/25/20 10:36 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Originally Posted by Anonymous
The focus needs to be on Spallina, Levy and Frank. They are the coaches and the select the kids with final say. Selection committee is I am sure a bunch of no names. At the end the coaches have no ethics or didn’t do the job of review.

Some better be careful of where they currently are at right now. The Gtown program fell off the rails when RF decided to coach USA, and asst lost her job at BU. Takes a ton of time away from regular duty at their school. History will tell you not good combination

Yes, 100% on the coaches. Not sure that I agree with the assertion that coaching Team USA will have a negative impact on a coach or their program. Like him or not, JS is an excellent coach I'm sure he will be fine. North Carolina will always be one of the Top Programs simply because of all that the school has to offer.

Good luck to all who were selected to tryout for the US Team.

Originally US Lacrosse indicated that they would select 72 players to be invited to the US Team Tryouts, the actual number invited was cut to 50. Does anyone know why they reduced the number? Does anyone know how many players applied? I remember they said more than 500 players applied for the U19 team and they invited just over 100 to the tryouts. Obviously, there are a number of very well known current players who were not on the list of invitees. Did many not apply?

Like Reply Quote
Sponsored Links
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313357 10/25/20 11:28 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
B
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
B
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? That makes no sense. Then every sport would be playing using those protocols. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing a lot football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Quoting a New York Times article does not help your case.

It does when the school officials state that revenue was a major factor for football's return

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313358 10/25/20 11:45 AM
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
B
Back of THE CAGE
Offline
Back of THE CAGE
B
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 531
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Originally Posted by baldbear
Football found a way because of large network and conference network money.


Nope. Sorry. They found a way because they wanted to and came up with work arounds and put protocols in place that seem to be working.

Only football came up with the "work arounds and put protocols in place"? So if the soccer programs came to to the athletic director and president of a school with the same "work arounds and protocols" they would be playing? That makes no sense. Then everyone would be playing. Even after cancelling their fall seasons the PAC12 and Big Ten came back to football seeing the money left on the table. This is an excerpt from the New York Times article about why football is being played:

"The decisions by the leagues — some publicly unflinching, others openly deliberating from one month to the next — carry enormous implications for college athletics. By playing football, even without every stadium packed with fans, schools across the country will collectively earn hundreds of millions of dollars from broadcast rights and sponsorships that will prop up budgets that had been threatened with severe cuts."

Power conference football is a huge money generating college sport. They are not playing football at lower conferences because there is no network money. Don't be surprised if winter sports are cancelled by power conferences too--except mens basketball.


Oh really. ..,. Wrong.....See you should have googled before you answered. ....NCAA study in 2019 found only 20 of 1,000 college football teams were profitable. Many lower conference football is being played. Now..... do your homework and find out how many college basketball programs are profitable. The # will surprise you.

There are 674 collegiate football programs; 257 Division I, 167 Division II and 250 Division III. The "study" you note highlighted the top 20 most profitable programs as the result of legislation in some states to pay players (California leading the way). The 20th team made $28 million; I don't think #21 was in the red. Football is the number one generator of revenue which is passed along to other sports programs (for the Big East its basketball). The vast majority of D1 programs are profitable but here is the 20 noted in the 2019 NCAA report (which was not a "study"; each school must report to the NCAA the revenue and expenses for every sport every year):

Texas – $92 million
Tennessee – $70 million
LSU – $58 million
Michigan – $56 million
Notre Dame – $54 million
Georgia – $50 million
Ohio State – $50 million
Oklahoma – $48 million
Auburn – $47 million
Alabama – $46 million
Oregon – $40 million
Florida State – $39 million
Arkansas – $38 million
Washington – $38 million
Florida – $37 million
Texas A&M – $37 million
Penn State – $36 million
Michigan State – $32 million
USC – $29 million
South Carolina – $28 million

Basketball has more games but lower margins so again, most D1 programs are profitable. Louisville is the perennial #1 in this regard with profits over $40 million.

EDIT-You may be referencing the NCAA Annual report which represents 1,100 schools and ALL sports.


Cmon.... you went with the Athnet stats that didn’t mention EXPENSES. Sooo... I will give a few...

Texas-revenue-$224M. Expenses-$205M
Texas A&M-rev $212M. Expenses-$170M
Ohio State-rev-$210M. Expenses-$221M
Michigan-rev-$198M. Expenses-$191M
Georgia-rev-$174M. Expenses-$143M
Penn State-rev-$164M. Expenses-$160M
Alabama-rev-$164M. Expenses-$185M

I won’t list all 227 listed by NCAA.

Anyhow NCAA study admits that the college accounting Fromm school to school is not uniform.

Now ...... you have proven my point. There are 893 college football programs spanning Div 1, Div 2, Div 3, NAIA, NJCAA. On low side say 20 are PROFITABLE that represents approx 2%. Let’s say 40 are PROFITABLE that represents 4%. We can continue with the simple math. But the facts are most football programs don’t turn a profit. The statement that these football programs bankroll all the other sports programs at a college is just false except for a small percentage.

You can google numerous articles about why have college sports. As you can see approximately 95% of colleges subsidize their athletics. Why??? To summarize here are a few reasons
Enrollment-many non student athletes choose a college because of game day social activity
Branding-school spirit and fan loyalty
Long term fan support and alumni camaraderie.
Sense of unity and pride among fans and alumni.
Revenue
Overall student experience.

This conversation began with football finding a way to play within the current covid nonsense rules. football found a way to play and it should be a template for other college sports to find a way to play. As indicated above college athletics touches many students other than the student athlete. In addition colleges recruited athletes of all sports to come to their college. College admin and AD’s should be finding ways to play not sit on their hands and tell student athletes sorry... season cancelled. Again... football did.

I have enjoyed our discussion and should have used revenue as the major reason to bring back football, not profit. As you state accounting practices vary and even a Hollywood blockbuster does not show a profit, so revenue is more likely the culprit.

"College admin and AD’s should be finding ways to play not sit on their hands and tell student athletes sorry... season cancelled. Again... football did". Lets bring this back to lacrosse. Administrator and AD's are allowing football to play; football programs are not operating outside the schools. The AD's and administration are allowing the football teams to play, not the other way around. So administrators and AD's have found a way. The question is why hasn't it been applied to all sports equally? I would like your opinion on that because lacrosse, women's lacrosse, while we love the sport (I had an All-American daughter) is not a high priority for many schools. Why are administrations and AD's sitting on their hands? I have stated my opinion (money), which you don't agree with, so I ask yours.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
Anonymous #313428 10/25/20 07:28 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
I am hearing The 2020 class to get another year for Spring sports, but only might be that class.


My daughter plays a fall sport in college and they will be playing in the spring but still get their year back

Winter sports are also getting an extra year of eligibility due to covid uncertainty, even if they play some form of a season. Spring sports got an extra year this past spring for a partial season, so seems possible they won't get a second year for covid. Makes sense that players not rostered in 2020 (i.e. 2020 hs grads) get the extra year, though, since they have been/will be impacted similarly to 2020-21 fall and winter sports. Otherwise I can see a lot of freshman choosing to redshirt this year, maybe even those who would get meaningful playing time. My daughter's team is already planning for a condensed game schedule. Why give up a year of eligibility for a shortened season that might be canceled part way through, or player gets covid and misses 2-3 weeks by the time she is cleared to return, and some teams have larger than normal rosters due to 5th year seniors making it harder to earn playing time.

Because there is more to life than lacrosse .

True, but there are a number of seniors who returned this year for a 5th year as grad students. There are current seniors already planning to use their extra year of eligibility in 2022. There are plenty of players who take a 5th or even 6th year due to injury. There are college freshman who plan to attend graduate school, add a minor or specialization, etc. who would love to continue playing while they do it. There will be some who want to be done with college after four years and move on, but I think many players who love the sport would consider redshirting this year in hopes of four years of lacrosse that are more normal.



That is what makes it tougher

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
TheBackOfTheCage #313452 10/26/20 05:25 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
By giving the freshmen and extra year of sports in fall and winter, and the are actually playing there season The NCAA will have to give the freshmen Spring sports and extra year.

As you we now know in America if we do it for one,
We have to do it for ALL.

This way if you look at really only one group was lost that was seniors of Winter sports last year. Not bad. As Fall player there season and Winter played 80 percent of it.

Like Reply Quote
Re: 2020-2021 Women's College Lacrosse Season
TheBackOfTheCage #313926 10/30/20 05:31 AM
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
Well it looks like D1 will announce soon that at least freshmen will get another year for Spring 2021 sports, if not all players potentially. The D2 and D3 councils just approved this week for all participants in spring 21.

I think you will see a lot of players transferring in summer if season doesn’t count against eligibility time. Just like Fall and Winter sports who have already been granted this relief. We knew that was going to happen based on Spring sports giving in Spring 2020.

Time will tell...

Like Reply Quote
Page 10 of 16 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 15 16
Quick Reply

Options
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled


Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4