Miscellaneous questions, thoughts, impressions, etc.

[wlaxphan20]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

[Bart]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

[wlaxphan20]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

[Bart]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

[wlaxphan20]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

[Bart]

According to the article above, you have to petition for a 6th year and it appears that the NCAA is not giving 6th years for players impacted by the Ivy League not playing in 2021.

So this would suggest what for the two MD players? Am I counting wrong or would both be at 6?

Different COVID rules for winter and spring athletes. Jerome played 3 full seasons prior to Covid. He Played full seasons his Fresh-Junior year with the exception of the tournament being canceled. Winter athletes were granted an additional year for the 2020-2021 season. Spring athletes were granted an extra year for the 2020 season. So, this year was Jerome's 4th full season playing basketball.

In the case of the 2 lacrosse players in question, this 2022 season was only their 3rd full season so they each have one more to play.

From the NCAA site....

"Winter sport student-athletes who compete during 2020-21 in Division I will receive both an additional season of competition and an additional year in which to complete it, the Division I Council decided. The same flexibility was provided to student-athletes after the spring season was canceled in 2020 and the fall season was seriously impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."

"The pandemic will continue to impact winter sport seasons in ways we can't predict. Council members opted to provide for winter sport student-athletes the same flexibility given spring and fall sports previously," said Council chair M. Grace Calhoun, athletics director at Pennsylvania. "The actions today ensure the continuation of local decision-making in the best interest of each institution and its student-athletes."

So from reading this the 2020 season should not have counted and the athlete in question should have another year? If this is the case then why would he not get another? What you wrote made sense to me until I read this....... What am I missing?

He did not compete in the 2020-21 season. He competed in 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 at Princeton. He received his extra year for 2020-21 and played this year(2021-22) thus exhausting his 4 full years of eligibility.

Lacrosse players received an additional season for replacement of the 2019-20 academic year. The two laxers played in 2018-19 and 2019-20. The 2020 spring season was canceled nationwide so they get credit for that year. The 2021 spring season was only canceled by the Ivy league so they did not use a year of eligibility that year either. They both played this 2022 spring season leaving them one more year to complete their 4 years of eligibility. Jerome played his 4th season this winter. No one was granted a 5th full season of competition due to Covid.

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

[wlaxphan20]

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

I actually thought I might be in the minority haha. I definitely agree, it has dampened the experience for many recruits and underclassmen, but if the NCAA's goal was to make sure everyone has the opportunity for 4 full years I don't really see a better way to do it. Part of me was wondering if they chose that route to avoid lawsuits from students or to avoid having to process each petition to get that 2020 season back individually. It is what it is. I wonder if this will push coaches to maximize their bench minutes and try and get as many kids to letter as possible to avoid even more of a back up - not very likely IMO, but just a thought.

[Bart]

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

I actually thought I might be in the minority haha. I definitely agree, it has dampened the experience for many recruits and underclassmen, but if the NCAA's goal was to make sure everyone has the opportunity for 4 full years I don't really see a better way to do it. Part of me was wondering if they chose that route to avoid lawsuits from students or to avoid having to process each petition to get that 2020 season back individually. It is what it is. I wonder if this will push coaches to maximize their bench minutes and try and get as many kids to letter as possible to avoid even more of a back up - not very likely IMO, but just a thought.

I have seen no evidence of coaches maximizing their bench minutes. In honesty, with quarters I think bench minutes have gone down but that is just the "eye" test and I have not looked into any data to back that up.

But you are right, it is what it is. The ripple effect will be felt for several more years.

[wlaxphan20]

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

I actually thought I might be in the minority haha. I definitely agree, it has dampened the experience for many recruits and underclassmen, but if the NCAA's goal was to make sure everyone has the opportunity for 4 full years I don't really see a better way to do it. Part of me was wondering if they chose that route to avoid lawsuits from students or to avoid having to process each petition to get that 2020 season back individually. It is what it is. I wonder if this will push coaches to maximize their bench minutes and try and get as many kids to letter as possible to avoid even more of a back up - not very likely IMO, but just a thought.

I have seen no evidence of coaches maximizing their bench minutes. In honesty, with quarters I think bench minutes have gone down but that is just the "eye" test and I have not looked into any data to back that up.

But you are right, it is what it is. The ripple effect will be felt for several more years.

I haven't seen it either, I meant in future, but like I said it's not likely. Just something I saw as a possible way to minimize "ripple effect 5th years". That's a good point about the quarters as well!

[tothedraw]

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

I actually thought I might be in the minority haha. I definitely agree, it has dampened the experience for many recruits and underclassmen, but if the NCAA's goal was to make sure everyone has the opportunity for 4 full years I don't really see a better way to do it. Part of me was wondering if they chose that route to avoid lawsuits from students or to avoid having to process each petition to get that 2020 season back individually. It is what it is. I wonder if this will push coaches to maximize their bench minutes and try and get as many kids to letter as possible to avoid even more of a back up - not very likely IMO, but just a thought.

I have seen no evidence of coaches maximizing their bench minutes. In honesty, with quarters I think bench minutes have gone down but that is just the "eye" test and I have not looked into any data to back that up.

But you are right, it is what it is. The ripple effect will be felt for several more years.

I haven't seen it either, I meant in future, but like I said it's not likely. Just something I saw as a possible way to minimize "ripple effect 5th years". That's a good point about the quarters as well!

I know of a men's team who red shirted a significant portion of their freshman class because they were grad/senior heavy this year.

[wlaxphan20]

You must have typed that slow so I got it now. Thanks.

Still have qualms with the COVID year

I get how it has really backlogged things and mucked a lot up for underclassmen and high schoolers trying to get recruited…I just think whatever decision the NCAA made they were going to face backlash. There was already a precedent for deferring eligibility, so it made sense at the time to grant it. This way, everyone is still getting their 4 full years.

Precedent for deferring eligibility?

Red-shirting?

Then apply the same rules for redshirting.

Don’t they? Was the COVID year not essentially the same thing as granting every spring athlete a redshirt?

I’m probably in the vast minority on this but no, not in my opinion.

I actually thought I might be in the minority haha. I definitely agree, it has dampened the experience for many recruits and underclassmen, but if the NCAA's goal was to make sure everyone has the opportunity for 4 full years I don't really see a better way to do it. Part of me was wondering if they chose that route to avoid lawsuits from students or to avoid having to process each petition to get that 2020 season back individually. It is what it is. I wonder if this will push coaches to maximize their bench minutes and try and get as many kids to letter as possible to avoid even more of a back up - not very likely IMO, but just a thought.

I have seen no evidence of coaches maximizing their bench minutes. In honesty, with quarters I think bench minutes have gone down but that is just the "eye" test and I have not looked into any data to back that up.

But you are right, it is what it is. The ripple effect will be felt for several more years.

I haven't seen it either, I meant in future, but like I said it's not likely. Just something I saw as a possible way to minimize "ripple effect 5th years". That's a good point about the quarters as well!

I know of a men's team who red shirted a significant portion of their freshman class because they were grad/senior heavy this year.

Yeah, it’s definitely a consequence that’s going to take a while to even out

[user1020]

Anyone care to create a WAY too early top 25

[Dr. Tact]

Anyone care to create a WAY too early top 25

nope

[njbill]

Anyone care to create a WAY too early top 25

Top 25 is way too ambitious for my blood, but I'll take a shot at a top 5.

1. Northwestern. The Scane Train is back baby, rollin' on down the track. Picture what BC would have looked like this year without North. That describes the 2022 Wildcats. Scane is coming for North's career goals record. Her single season record lasted a single season. North's career record will last two.

2. Maryland. The Turtles are back as well. They were the better team on Friday but went into their shell at the most critical time of the game, while the Eagles played fearlessly, like the reigning champions they were (at least for two more days). Md. U. has the best coaching staff in the business, something some know nothings questioned because the Terps had a down year in 2021. Early indicator of what Cathy thinks of her 2023 squad will be their schedule release. My money says UNC and Syr will be back on the schedule. Cathy will hire a dog sled team to get to Syracuse if she has to. And if she puts Spallina on the schedule, look out!

3. Syracuse. My deal with Joe is that for every compliment I give to Syr, I get one criticism. So I now have one shot at the Orange in the bank. 2023 will be an injury free year for Syr (finally) and Treanor will fix her goalie problem. What? No. 3? Does that mean they are the best team in the ACC? Yup.

4. Boston College. The $64,000 question is what will Boston look like in the post-North era? Good, I think. This is now Belle Smith's team. Smith is the most complete player in the game today. Even including her moving screens. And I suspect there might be a player or two on the roster who will volunteer to take all those shots North took for the past two years.

5. Rutgers. OK, homer call here. Rutgers has just gotten better and better in the Melissa Lehman era. That whacking of NU was no accident. Still a few more pieces needed, but this program has really turned the corner and has by no means seen its best days.

UNC. TBD. When you look down the list of the departing players, it's enough to make Larry feel sorry for Jenny. Well, almost. I think the Tarheels really fall off next year, but stay in the top 10.

Yep. Three of the top five from the Big 10, which supplants the ACC as the best conference in wlax, at least next year.

This post will self-destruct in 24 hours so there will be no evidence next year about how wrong these predictions turn out to be.

[Laxfan500]

Anyone care to create a WAY too early top 25

Top 25 is way too ambitious for my blood, but I'll take a shot at a top 5.

1. Northwestern. The Scane Train is back baby, rollin' on down the track. Picture what BC would have looked like this year without North. That describes the 2022 Wildcats. Scane is coming for North's career goals record. Her single season record lasted a single season. North's career record will last two.

2. Maryland. The Turtles are back as well. They were the better team on Friday but went into their shell at the most critical time of the game, while the Eagles played fearlessly, like the reigning champions they were (at least for two more days). Md. U. has the best coaching staff in the business, something some know nothings questioned because the Terps had a down year in 2021. Early indicator of what Cathy thinks of her 2023 squad will be their schedule release. My money says UNC and Syr will be back on the schedule. Cathy will hire a dog sled team to get to Syracuse if she has to. And if she puts Spallina on the schedule, look out!

3. Syracuse. My deal with Joe is that for every compliment I give to Syr, I get one criticism. So I now have one shot at the Orange in the bank. 2023 will be an injury free year for Syr (finally) and Treanor will fix her goalie problem. What? No. 3? Does that mean they are the best team in the ACC? Yup.

4. Boston College. The $64,000 question is what will Boston look like in the post-North era? Good, I think. This is now Belle Smith's team. Smith is the most complete player in the game today. Even including her moving screens. And I suspect there might be a player or two on the roster who will volunteer to take all those shots North took for the past two years.

5. Rutgers. OK, homer call here. Rutgers has just gotten better and better in the Melissa Lehman era. That whacking of NU was no accident. Still a few more pieces needed, but this program has really turned the corner and has by no means seen its best days.

UNC. TBD. When you look down the list of the departing players, it's enough to make Larry feel sorry for Jenny. Well, almost. I think the Tarheels really fall off next year, but stay in the top 10.

Yep. Three of the top five from the Big 10, which supplants the ACC as the best conference in wlax, at least next year.

This post will self-destruct in 24 hours so there will be no evidence next year about how wrong these predictions turn out to be.

There are or will be a number of high profile kids in portal. That may skew this list.

[user1020]

Will UNC fall for 2 years like UMD did after their 2019 championship because of so many people graduating? I have to see Jenny Levy hitting the transfer portal hard.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

UNC. TBD. When you look down the list of the departing players, it's enough to make Larry feel sorry for Jenny. Well, almost. I think the Tar Heels really fall off next year, but stay in the top 10.

I like this. Common sense assessment of what happens to a team when they graduate a boatload of great players.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I doubt Northwestern will begin or end the year at No. 1. They get Scane back, sure; and we will see how healthy she is. Even if 110% -- and I hope she is -- they lose Gilbert, Girardi, and Palermo at a minimum. NU will be in the mix for sure, but Izzy is not the answer to all of their hopes.

If I were to pick, right now, a No. 1 for next year, it'd likely be Maryland.

UNC loses at least Mastroianni, Ortega, Growney, Trenchard, Moreno, Geiersbach, and Aldave. How many "seniors" will be back for their "covid" make-up year?

[wlaxphan20]

I doubt Northwestern will begin or end the year at No. 1. They get Scane back, sure; and we will see how healthy she is. Even if 110% -- and I hope she is -- they lose Gilbert, Girardi, and Palermo at a minimum. NU will be in the mix for sure, but Izzy is not the answer to all of their hopes.

If I were to pick, right now, a No. 1 for next year, it'd likely be Maryland.

UNC loses at least Mastroianni, Ortega, Growney, Trenchard, Moreno, Geiersbach, and Aldave. How many "seniors" will be back for their "covid" make-up year?

I think even if all of them chose to come back it would only be something like 4 or 5 players. Warehime, Neuman, Fedor…Hillman & Hall too, but they also both have a medical RS.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I doubt Northwestern will begin or end the year at No. 1. They get Scane back, sure; and we will see how healthy she is. Even if 110% -- and I hope she is -- they lose Gilbert, Girardi, and Palermo at a minimum. NU will be in the mix for sure, but Izzy is not the answer to all of their hopes.

Agreed here. It remains to be seen how well Coykendall’s chemistry with Scane survives the time away. They’ll have the same coaching staff though so that doesn’t help. Though I do give them credit for playing a different (winning) style in the big game—in the end they couldn’t produce a winner.