Justafan wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 3:35 pm
laxfan22 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:52 pm
NElaxtalent wrote: ↑Wed Mar 18, 2020 2:32 pm
If given a choice, I think HC's will invest their scholarship $ in extending/rewarding their
proven '20 - '23 players for a 5th yr (via a smaller 2022 class) vs recruiting a normal sized 2022 class.
Of course they will. That's why they can't go this way, it's a huge burden placed on the 2022 class that is simply not fair to one group of players who have worked hard to get to this point. Reducing opportunity by 10, 20 or 50% for an entire class can and should be avoided. If you want to give current college seniors another year and then review a request for a waiver for current juniors (e.g., the goalie who was planning on starting but now cannot because a goalie returns for year 5) is the fairest and most common sense approach to deal with this issue. It's also the least financially burdensome.
I'm assuming you have a player in the 2022 class. With that said, your suggestion is not the most fair way. That is the way you feel works out for your little Johnnie the best/most fair. The fact is, there are already players in college that are getting word that their money is probably going to go down.
because of this. What would you say to them. Is that fair? I would also say that if a 2022 player is good, they will have nothing to worry about. If they were borderline, then yes, they may not get what they may have gotten originally. But that can also be said for the current college players. No matter what the NCAA would have decided, some group would have felt it was a horrible decision.
By the way, I am not saying that things don't change at all for kids in the 2022 class, I am just saying that it has changed for everyone. To say that your idea makes the most common sense is not true or accurate. Also the least financially burdensome? For who? There are a ton more domino affects to any of the decisions than you are thinking of. So once again, its the same for everything in life. make sure you are valuable enough vs the other players to get the money you want to get.
I don't agree with the comment that "if a 2022 player is good, they will have nothing to worry about." I think that of all of the classes, the 2022s are potentially hurt the most. Let's compare.
College
Seniors: played 1/3 of regular season. no post-season. potential option to play 5th season. not adversely affected by enlarged roster
Juniors: played 1/3 of regular season. no post-season. potential option to play 5th season. affected 1 year by enlarged roster
Sophomores: played 1/3 of regular season. no post-season. potential option to play 5th season. affected 2 years by enlarged roster.
Freshman: played 1/3 of regular season. no post-season. potential option to play 5th season. affected 3 years by enlarged roster.
High School
Seniors: lost entire varsity season. no post-season. no option to play additional season. affected 4 years by enlarged roster. Not affected by recruiting.
Juniors: lost entire varsity season. no post-season. no option to play additional season. affected 3 years by enlarged roster. Not affected by recruiting unless colleges rescind their offers.
Sophomores: lost entire varsity season. no post-season. no option to play additional season. affected 2 years by enlarged roster.
Recruiting is where they could get hurt the most. Most haven't played any competitive games or had significant practice since Presidents Cup in November 2019. If the club lacrosse season is cancelled, it's likely that their college recruiting season will be shifted to the fall and probably required to be compressed during the school year ? maybe fall/winter for D1. Also significantly, coaches will lose out on the opportunity to evaluate recruits this year. This class of HS lacrosse recruits could be the least prepared (from 10 months of inactivity) and the hardest to project in history. A legitimate concern for 2022s is the possibility, that due to this increased uncertainty, teams could altogether decide to curtail their offers to this class. Teams theoretically have the option of keeping more 5th year players to offset their reduction of HS recruits from this class. Under these circumstances, I think a tested, top current college sophomore who can definitely contribute an additional year (in 3 years) to his/her team is infinitely more valuable than an untested HS 2022 recruit who won't be available to play for 3 years and won't be able to contribute to the team for 4-5 years assuming he/she actually pans out.
If an average of 2 seniors/team stay for their optional 5th year, that significantly decreases the availability of college lacrosse rosters spots for incoming players. That loss in spots (an estimate of 25% for women's teams recruiting class) shifts the entire supply-demand curve. That is assuming colleges are unwilling to continue to enlarge their rosters for this class. So unless the HS recruit is at the apex of the curve, he/she will shift to a lower position (i.e. less desirable destination) relative to the original curve. And for the bottom players (approximately 1842 HS class of 2022 male/female athletes), they lose out on their ability (and probably their big dream) to play college lacrosse altogether.
That's why HS players, especially 2022s, have something to worry about. IMO, it's worse than the college kids.