Transfer Portal

[laxfan22]

unfortunately, i don't see roster sizes expanding. If anything, they will be contracted due to massive financial constraints which will a double whammy. I hope I'm being overly negative, but unfortunately, I don't think I am.

[njfanlax]

The decision to grant an extra year was emotional and hurried. Hopefully they have figured out the mess that this will create. Horrible precedent if fall sports are impacted.

I respect your opinion Papa, but you are wrong. The decision may have been emotional and hurried but it was correct. Only somebody who played a collegiate sport would truly understand how devastating this is to these young athletes who dedicate themselves and sacrifice more than most people will ever understand. Give them their year back!

How about the high school athlete who will now not get the same opportunity to experience what it was like to play in college? They don't count, apparently.

laxfan, just my opinion but I think you're too quick to assume a negative outcome for 2022's. There is a lot of room on rosters of D!, D2 & D3 for good players/good students Kids have to compete for their spot every year, nothing is guaranteed.

I don't think anyone knows what the outcome will be. But it is clear the potential could be very bad for 2022s. Assuming that lacrosse roster sizes contract back to their previous regular size, every future 5th year player who is currently a college sophomore is essentially taking a roster spot from a HS 2022 player.

Let's use this analogy. Getting recruited to play college lacrosse is like taking a tough entrance exam where the score is curved. Currently, those students who score well and are 1 standard deviation above the mean get recruited to a D3 program. Those students who score really well and are 2 standard deviations above the mean get recruited to a D1 program. Because of the NCAA rule and its effect on the Class of 2022 and 2023s, scoring 2 standard deviations above the mean only gets you into a D3 program not a D1 program. Scoring 3 standard deviations above the mean is now required to get recruited to a D1 program. After those 2 classes, it reverts back to the easier, regular scale. Kids are still competing hard as before, but the NCAA artificially and arbitrarily made it much harder for them. As a result, a lot more HS students (hundreds of players in the 2022 and 2023 classes) don't realize their dream of playing college lacrosse. There wasn't enough room for them, but statistically they would have made the cut in other years. Those that do get recruited are now playing for "inferior" programs relative to what would have happened outside this 2 year window. Remember for these HS kids, both their academic and athletic goals are unfortunately intertwined in the college that selects them. So that is why this could be a huge negative outcome for them.

I agree with some of your points and the overall D1/D3 pool might shrink a bit (although not in the hundreds as you suggest...at least not in Womens), however, there are a few other things to consider. I think this could actually create a heightened level of competition and parity. Many programs will use larger roster sizes to catch up competitively and even the talent gap a bit between Top 10 and 25. The one or two kids not going to Top Programs to sit on a bench (or more likely quit) for four year may now choose to compete for a starting spot at another school. For the majority of kids coming back and I can tell you this from what is happening right now, many who said they are coming back...aren't, many who have money today are not going to be offered money or offered less to stay, and frankly the Top programs don't want to carry some of the marginal players over incoming classes. There is a real issue on how many kids the schools will actually let the Teams carry the next handful of years and that will impact the 2022's, but when the dust settles, the impact will be smaller than many think IMHO. As a parent of a prospective 2022 player who will be impacted, I'll repeat what I have posted before that I tell them....work harder, nothing is ever guaranteed.

I am not saying this will definitely happen, but the potential is there IF colleges revert back to their regular roster sizes. (after supporting the enlarged roster for the entering 2020 and 2021 classes) It really depends on the number of current college sophomores who decide to take their 5th year option.
I think coaches will favor 5th year players over HS recruits. I also think that based on an expected economic downturn, players will find it preferable to stay in school an extra year (IF they can secure funding) and work on a graduate degree than trying to land a decent job in a very weak labor market.

I will be very happy if my comments are proved completely wrong and yours are correct.


"I agree with some of your points and the overall D1/D3 pool might shrink a bit (although not in the hundreds as you suggest...at least not in Womens)"
This is how I got to that number.

Assuming roster size reverts back to normal and there are 8 openings/team/year.

If each D1 women's team on average recruits 1 5th year transfer, that means there are a total of 118 5th year transfers nationwide. The available roster spots of 2022 recruits shrinks by 1/8 or 12.5%. 826 girls get recruited to a D1 school. 118 girls get shut out.

If each D1 women's team on average recruits 2 5th year transfers, that means there are a total of 236 5th year transfers nationwide. The available roster spots of 2022 recruits shrinks by 2/8 or 25%. 708 girls get recruited to a D1 school. 236 girls get shut out.

If each D1 women's team on average recruits 4 5th year transfers, that means there are a total of 472 5th year transfers nationwide. The available roster spots of 2022 recruits shrinks by 4/8 or 50%. 472 girls get recruited to a D1 school. 472 girls get shut out.

If each D1 women's team on average recruits 8 5th year transfers, that means there are a total of 944 5th year transfers nationwide. The available roster spots of 2022 recruits shrinks by 8/8 or 100%. 0 girls get recruited to a D1 school. 944 girls get shut out.

It doesn't take a lot of change on each team's roster to result in hundreds of HS girls getting left out. Any shift in the supply-demand curve adversely affects all players recruited to play D1, except for those players who reside near the apex.
The range of possibilities is huge; roster spots can shrink as little as 0% or as much as 100%.

[Lurker]

Going back to what I said in an earlier post...

With the number of D1 start up programs that have come on board the last 4-5 years, there are (frankly) a lot of girls on D1 rosters who probably shouldn't be. A D1 start up last year at this time was emailing HS coaches asking if they had and D2 or D3 commits who would be interested in playing D1. And they took just about any warm body they could get.

There are a lot of D2 and D3 programs in the midwest that are fielding rosters of 14-16 players.

If a 2022 HS player wants to play lax in college there will be plenty of opportunities. Some girls who would have been fringe D1 will probably have to go D2 or D3, and some girls who would have been on the radar of top 10 or top 20 D2 and D3 programs may have to settle for 2nd tier teams... but they'll all have a chance to play if they want to play. There are still more spots than there are players to fill them.

[8meterPA]

This - 100%!!

[laxfan22]

Going back to what I said in an earlier post...

With the number of D1 start up programs that have come on board the last 4-5 years, there are (frankly) a lot of girls on D1 rosters who probably shouldn't be. A D1 start up last year at this time was emailing HS coaches asking if they had and D2 or D3 commits who would be interested in playing D1. And they took just about any warm body they could get.

There are a lot of D2 and D3 programs in the midwest that are fielding rosters of 14-16 players.

If a 2022 HS player wants to play lax in college there will be plenty of opportunities. Some girls who would have been fringe D1 will probably have to go D2 or D3, and some girls who would have been on the radar of top 10 or top 20 D2 and D3 programs may have to settle for 2nd tier teams... but they'll all have a chance to play if they want to play. There are still more spots than there are players to fill them.

If the only consideration is playing on SOME college roster, then i suppose that's likely correct. But for most kids who are making a decision based on academics and lacrosse, frankly, there are a lot of schools that are not options - a kid who was going to play for a top academic D3 is probably not going to attend some small Pentecostal school in Indiana to play lacrosse. That kid will just give up lacrosse and go to school as a "regular" student.

[Dr. Tact]

Going back to what I said in an earlier post...

With the number of D1 start up programs that have come on board the last 4-5 years, there are (frankly) a lot of girls on D1 rosters who probably shouldn't be. A D1 start up last year at this time was emailing HS coaches asking if they had and D2 or D3 commits who would be interested in playing D1. And they took just about any warm body they could get.

There are a lot of D2 and D3 programs in the midwest that are fielding rosters of 14-16 players.

If a 2022 HS player wants to play lax in college there will be plenty of opportunities. Some girls who would have been fringe D1 will probably have to go D2 or D3, and some girls who would have been on the radar of top 10 or top 20 D2 and D3 programs may have to settle for 2nd tier teams... but they'll all have a chance to play if they want to play. There are still more spots than there are players to fill them.

This - 100%!!

I have been (sheepishly) hiding in wait until there were a few thoughts like mine out there. I know it is painful for the 2022/23 class. I am sorry that this has happened....but, I look at it 2 ways. If you are a player that is not a blue chip, as Lurker suggests above, you probably shouldnt be reaching for a top 10 team. If this whole thing didnt happen and you were #6,7,or 8 in a class for that top 10 team, you might never see meaningful minutes. For many players in that position, that may be OK. There are lots of girls who want to be part of a winning team and are willing to be practice players or mop up players. Now, on the other hand, if you looked beyond the top 10 dream, you might catch on with a mid level team where you can be a starter, contributer, star, etc. Gladwell's Big Fish/Little Pond scenario. This process may end up right sizing/distributing the talent in a more even way that will grow the game with better mid-level Competition.

I mean no disrespect to the affected parents out there, I know it is tough...that is just my faceless opinion from my chair behind my computer screen and I recognize that it doesnt add any comfort to a sucky situation.

[Dr. Tact]

Going back to what I said in an earlier post...

With the number of D1 start up programs that have come on board the last 4-5 years, there are (frankly) a lot of girls on D1 rosters who probably shouldn't be. A D1 start up last year at this time was emailing HS coaches asking if they had and D2 or D3 commits who would be interested in playing D1. And they took just about any warm body they could get.

There are a lot of D2 and D3 programs in the midwest that are fielding rosters of 14-16 players.

If a 2022 HS player wants to play lax in college there will be plenty of opportunities. Some girls who would have been fringe D1 will probably have to go D2 or D3, and some girls who would have been on the radar of top 10 or top 20 D2 and D3 programs may have to settle for 2nd tier teams... but they'll all have a chance to play if they want to play. There are still more spots than there are players to fill them.

If the only consideration is playing on SOME college roster, then i suppose that's likely correct. But for most kids who are making a decision based on academics and lacrosse, frankly, there are a lot of schools that are not options - a kid who was going to play for a top academic D3 is probably not going to attend some small Pentecostal school in Indiana to play lacrosse. That kid will just give up lacrosse and go to school as a "regular" student.

Why would you assume that a kid that was going to play for a top D3 academic wont have the same chance they have now? I just dont see that D3 will be affected as much as D1. There are no scholarships, so you have to want to play (and pay) at a D3. Yes, the whole discussion about roster sizes and returning players is applicable, but I think this will mostly affect D1. Where it will affect D3 is the tweener who says, well, I have this sucky D1 to go to that will give me money, but will lose for 4 years, or I can go to a top 10 D3. Will the reduction in recruiting classes at top D1's push all those players down to that decision? I would wager it wont, just because of the lack of scholarship ($$$) and the "prestige" of saying you are playing D1.

[laxfan22]

Going back to what I said in an earlier post...

With the number of D1 start up programs that have come on board the last 4-5 years, there are (frankly) a lot of girls on D1 rosters who probably shouldn't be. A D1 start up last year at this time was emailing HS coaches asking if they had and D2 or D3 commits who would be interested in playing D1. And they took just about any warm body they could get.

There are a lot of D2 and D3 programs in the midwest that are fielding rosters of 14-16 players.

If a 2022 HS player wants to play lax in college there will be plenty of opportunities. Some girls who would have been fringe D1 will probably have to go D2 or D3, and some girls who would have been on the radar of top 10 or top 20 D2 and D3 programs may have to settle for 2nd tier teams... but they'll all have a chance to play if they want to play. There are still more spots than there are players to fill them.

If the only consideration is playing on SOME college roster, then i suppose that's likely correct. But for most kids who are making a decision based on academics and lacrosse, frankly, there are a lot of schools that are not options - a kid who was going to play for a top academic D3 is probably not going to attend some small Pentecostal school in Indiana to play lacrosse. That kid will just give up lacrosse and go to school as a "regular" student.

Why would you assume that a kid that was going to play for a top D3 academic wont have the same chance they have now? I just dont see that D3 will be affected as much as D1. There are no scholarships, so you have to want to play (and pay) at a D3. Yes, the whole discussion about roster sizes and returning players is applicable, but I think this will mostly affect D1. Where it will affect D3 is the tweener who says, well, I have this sucky D1 to go to that will give me money, but will lose for 4 years, or I can go to a top 10 D3. Will the reduction in recruiting classes at top D1's push all those players down to that decision? I would wager it wont, just because of the lack of scholarship ($$$) and the "prestige" of saying you are playing D1.

It impacts D3 because the kid who was going to be playing in the A10 or the Patriot League may now not that opportunity and may be taking a roster spot at a Centennial conference school or Liberty League, etc. The impact trickles down.

[8meterPA]

here's a tip, Patriot league won't be impacted that greatly, other than Loyola. So if she is setting her sights on Patriot league, it is wide open if she is a good player and a great student.

[Dr. Tact]

Why would you assume that a kid that was going to play for a top D3 academic wont have the same chance they have now? I just dont see that D3 will be affected as much as D1. There are no scholarships, so you have to want to play (and pay) at a D3. Yes, the whole discussion about roster sizes and returning players is applicable, but I think this will mostly affect D1. Where it will affect D3 is the tweener who says, well, I have this sucky D1 to go to that will give me money, but will lose for 4 years, or I can go to a top 10 D3. Will the reduction in recruiting classes at top D1's push all those players down to that decision? I would wager it wont, just because of the lack of scholarship ($$$) and the "prestige" of saying you are playing D1.

It impacts D3 because the kid who was going to be playing in the A10 or the Patriot League may now not that opportunity and may be taking a roster spot at a Centennial conference school or Liberty League, etc. The impact trickles down.

I guess we are going to have to disagree. I dont follow your logic that a kid not making a PL team is just going to trickle down to D3. Two completely different situations for lacrosse/academics/life. If D3 were just lower level D1, I could buy your trickle down argument, but it isnt. There is a serious decision to choose a D3 over a D1. You dont just go there because you didnt get into some middling D1. D3 isnt the place that all kids who didnt/couldnt play D1 go, like some JV team. I know plenty of D3 players who could have played D1, but chose to go to D3 for various reasons (including a 3 time AA).

Youngest D's club team had a few girls who were being recruited to D1 schools. When they didnt get in the school they wanted, they didnt trickle down to the next worse school. They just decided that Lax wasnt what they wanted if it was trickling down/settling. So, again, I dont think the trickle down is consistently linear and makes it all the way to the bottom of D1, then (using your logic) skips to down D2 or D3. Will some mid level players trickle down in the top 40 schools of D1...possibly. Top 10, certainly. teams 41-118, nah.

[laxfan22]

Why would you assume that a kid that was going to play for a top D3 academic wont have the same chance they have now? I just dont see that D3 will be affected as much as D1. There are no scholarships, so you have to want to play (and pay) at a D3. Yes, the whole discussion about roster sizes and returning players is applicable, but I think this will mostly affect D1. Where it will affect D3 is the tweener who says, well, I have this sucky D1 to go to that will give me money, but will lose for 4 years, or I can go to a top 10 D3. Will the reduction in recruiting classes at top D1's push all those players down to that decision? I would wager it wont, just because of the lack of scholarship ($$$) and the "prestige" of saying you are playing D1.

It impacts D3 because the kid who was going to be playing in the A10 or the Patriot League may now not that opportunity and may be taking a roster spot at a Centennial conference school or Liberty League, etc. The impact trickles down.

I guess we are going to have to disagree. I dont follow your logic that a kid not making a PL team is just going to trickle down to D3. Two completely different situations for lacrosse/academics/life. If D3 were just lower level D1, I could buy your trickle down argument, but it isnt. There is a serious decision to choose a D3 over a D1. You dont just go there because you didnt get into some middling D1. D3 isnt the place that all kids who didnt/couldnt play D1 go, like some JV team. I know plenty of D3 players who could have played D1, but chose to go to D3 for various reasons (including a 3 time AA).

Youngest D's club team had a few girls who were being recruited to D1 schools. When they didnt get in the school they wanted, they didnt trickle down to the next worse school. They just decided that Lax wasnt what they wanted if it was trickling down/settling. So, again, I dont think the trickle down is consistently linear and makes it all the way to the bottom of D1, then (using your logic) skips to down D2 or D3. Will some mid level players trickle down in the top 40 schools of D1...possibly. Top 10, certainly. teams 41-118, nah.

I certainly respect your opinion, but from my more limited experience, it seems like there is a drop down - kids that aren't playing Patriot League aren't going to play for a poor D1 academic school, they seem to then choose equal academic schools in D3.

[Dr. Tact]

I certainly respect your opinion, but from my more limited experience, it seems like there is a drop down - kids that aren't playing Patriot League aren't going to play for a poor D1 academic school, they seem to then choose equal academic schools in D3.

I missed that part of your argument. Sorry. I can agree with that. That has, in fact, happened in the Tact household. I guess, with the exception of Navy/Loyola, the PL lacrosse is on par with some high D3s that are certainly comparable academics. I guess I was trying to take your argument and simplify it into a linear slide down to D3. I guess I may have misinterpreted your point(?)

[Cletus]

“According to a source, two IWCLA All-Americans entered the portal: USC’s Kerrigan Miller and Virginia’s Sammy Mueller.”

[Dr. Tact]

“According to a source, two IWCLA All-Americans entered the portal: USC’s Kerrigan Miller and Virginia’s Sammy Mueller.”

Neither of those are a big surprise to me. Both are/were on teams that have underperformed. Mueller needs a supporting cast that is better than what she had at VA this year. Her great success in 2018 and 2019 was in part because of Jackson and Shoemaker.

[Matnum PI]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

[Dr. Tact]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

Nothing at all. Mueller was a senior, so I assume she is going to graduate. That (UNC getting them) would be the end for all other teams in 2021. [edit: Both are 2020 Seniors]

Mueller is (IMO) the better of the two, although Miller seems to get more press. 48 G in 2019 versus 22. She is a force.

Both are New Yorkers....'Cuse???

[Laxfan500]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

Nothing at all. Mueller was a senior, so I assume she is going to graduate. That (UNC getting them) would be the end for all other teams in 2021. [edit: Both are 2020 Seniors]

Mueller is (IMO) the better of the two, although Miller seems to get more press. 48 G in 2019 versus 22. She is a force.

Both are New Yorkers....'Cuse???

Stony Brook?

[Laxfan500]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

Nothing at all. Mueller was a senior, so I assume she is going to graduate. That (UNC getting them) would be the end for all other teams in 2021. [edit: Both are 2020 Seniors]

Mueller is (IMO) the better of the two, although Miller seems to get more press. 48 G in 2019 versus 22. She is a force.

Both are New Yorkers....'Cuse???

Stony Brook? Does. College only have the senior money to use for transfers? Would a transfer affect underclassmen money?

[LaxGuy17]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

Nothing at all. Mueller was a senior, so I assume she is going to graduate. That (UNC getting them) would be the end for all other teams in 2021. [edit: Both are 2020 Seniors]

Mueller is (IMO) the better of the two, although Miller seems to get more press. 48 G in 2019 versus 22. She is a force.

Both are New Yorkers....'Cuse???

Stony Brook? Does. College only have the senior money to use for transfers? Would a transfer affect underclassmen money?

The way money works is that seniors staying at own school can have same or lesser money that does not count against the 12 other scholarships (including next years freshman class). For transfers, the money comes out of the 12 existing scholarships.

[Dr. Tact]

What stops UNC from grabbing both? UNC grabbing most all of the potential available talent and doing in lacrosse what they did (a while ago) in soccer?

Nothing at all. Mueller was a senior, so I assume she is going to graduate. That (UNC getting them) would be the end for all other teams in 2021. [edit: Both are 2020 Seniors]

Mueller is (IMO) the better of the two, although Miller seems to get more press. 48 G in 2019 versus 22. She is a force.

Both are New Yorkers....'Cuse???

Stony Brook?

rumor I heard is that one may be looking at Northwestern