Pro N Cons Another Season Senior Eligibilty

[smoova]

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.

It is interesting to see how many posters feel that college players, who lost half a season, "deserve" an additional year of eligibility, but high school players, who lost an entire season, should suffer a harder road to college lacrosse because ... "the real world."

Every lacrosse player in America lost their season this spring. Why should the NCAA further punish younger players who lost more to benefit older players who lost less? Growing the game indeed.

[NElaxtalent]

Many interesting perspectives, thanks to all for posting.If it weren't so impactful to so many that have worked so hard, it'd be a "fun debate".

I/we are Switzerland here, none of these choices affect our situation so . . .FWIW I just think the "fix" for the partial 2020 season shouldn't cause more harm (& for a 3 - 5 year period) than what it is trying "to fix".

And, ironically, the very athletes it is was initially proposed to help (the 2020 SRs) are seemingly the ones that will be helped the least by this "fix" since so many have already made post-graduation plans &/or are in schools/conferences that won't allow a simple "add a 5th year" option.

[njfanlax]

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.

[NElaxtalent]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

[smoova]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

Correct - it's roses and sunshine for the current college Fr/So/Jr who have plenty of time to plan out their 5th year.

In addition to the HS 2022s getting the high hard one, the HS 2020s get hammered: they roll into a team with a packed roster and never get to be the senior class, since the HS 2019s finish their eligibility at the same time as the HS 2020s.

Incredibly myopic decision by the NCAA, but I'd expect nothing less from that cabal.

[Justafan]

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.

It is interesting to see how many posters feel that college players, who lost half a season, "deserve" an additional year of eligibility, but high school players, who lost an entire season, should suffer a harder road to college lacrosse because ... "the real world."

Every lacrosse player in America lost their season this spring. Why should the NCAA further punish younger players who lost more to benefit older players who lost less? Growing the game indeed.

I actually don’t think they should have given college players an extra year. Never said they should have. Only commented that it’s not this grave injustice only for the high school player vs a college player.

I know for a fact two college players that were freshman this year that are being told they probably won’t get the same athletic scholarship that they got this year to make room for a couple of seniors And incoming freshman. Money they would have gotten before this happen.

I also know some high school players that are thinking of reclassifying because if this. So ya, it affects all of them.

I do think that the NCAA should not have given anyone an extra year in college. And by the way, people could also argue they did the right thing. I don’t think anyone is more right or wrong than the other. Most people are going to base their arguments based on their own situations and biases. And like what happens many times, people are going to over complicate things, and give all sorts of scenarios that support the way they believe. But those same people aren’t experiencing the other side.

[Justafan]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

Correct - it's roses and sunshine for the current college Fr/So/Jr who have plenty of time to plan out their 5th year.

In addition to the HS 2022s getting the high hard one, the HS 2020s get hammered: they roll into a team with a packed roster and never get to be the senior class, since the HS 2019s finish their eligibility at the same time as the HS 2020s.

Incredibly myopic decision by the NCAA, but I'd expect nothing less from that cabal.

Roses Nd sunshine? Lol. Holy cow. You really don’t know what is going on with some of these players and families that are in college. I’m sure it’s not worse than the high school kids, but it isn’t better for all of them either.

[njfanlax]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

Correct - it's roses and sunshine for the current college Fr/So/Jr who have plenty of time to plan out their 5th year.

In addition to the HS 2022s getting the high hard one, the HS 2020s get hammered: they roll into a team with a packed roster and never get to be the senior class, since the HS 2019s finish their eligibility at the same time as the HS 2020s.

Incredibly myopic decision by the NCAA, but I'd expect nothing less from that cabal.

From a competitive standpoint, my guess is that many coaches think that holding onto as many 5th year seniors as possible will be much more beneficial (at least in the short term) than recruiting the next great class of HS players. So for the Class of 2022, the first class of uncommitted players, how many coaches do you think will try that tactic? How many 5th year seniors can they creatively find a way to stay? It will be interesting to see what happens.

[njfanlax]

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.

It is interesting to see how many posters feel that college players, who lost half a season, "deserve" an additional year of eligibility, but high school players, who lost an entire season, should suffer a harder road to college lacrosse because ... "the real world."

Every lacrosse player in America lost their season this spring. Why should the NCAA further punish younger players who lost more to benefit older players who lost less? Growing the game indeed.

I actually don’t think they should have given college players an extra year. Never said they should have. Only commented that it’s not this grave injustice only for the high school player vs a college player.

I know for a fact two college players that were freshman this year that are being told they probably won’t get the same athletic scholarship that they got this year to make room for a couple of seniors And incoming freshman. Money they would have gotten before this happen.

I also know some high school players that are thinking of reclassifying because if this. So ya, it affects all of them.

I do think that the NCAA should not have given anyone an extra year in college. And by the way, people could also argue they did the right thing. I don’t think anyone is more right or wrong than the other. Most people are going to base their arguments based on their own situations and biases. And like what happens many times, people are going to over complicate things, and give all sorts of scenarios that support the way they believe. But those same people aren’t experiencing the other side.

I agree there are very few winners in this. There are mostly losers- college players included.

Correction: the only winners would be the athletes who actually take the 5th year of eligibility and get to play another year.

[smoova]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

Correct - it's roses and sunshine for the current college Fr/So/Jr who have plenty of time to plan out their 5th year.

In addition to the HS 2022s getting the high hard one, the HS 2020s get hammered: they roll into a team with a packed roster and never get to be the senior class, since the HS 2019s finish their eligibility at the same time as the HS 2020s.

Incredibly myopic decision by the NCAA, but I'd expect nothing less from that cabal.

Roses Nd sunshine? Lol. Holy cow. You really don’t know what is going on with some of these players and families that are in college. I’m sure it’s not worse than the high school kids, but it isn’t better for all of them either.

Heh - that's where you'd be wrong.

[smoova]

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.

It is interesting to see how many posters feel that college players, who lost half a season, "deserve" an additional year of eligibility, but high school players, who lost an entire season, should suffer a harder road to college lacrosse because ... "the real world."

Every lacrosse player in America lost their season this spring. Why should the NCAA further punish younger players who lost more to benefit older players who lost less? Growing the game indeed.

I actually don’t think they should have given college players an extra year. Never said they should have. Only commented that it’s not this grave injustice only for the high school player vs a college player.

I know for a fact two college players that were freshman this year that are being told they probably won’t get the same athletic scholarship that they got this year to make room for a couple of seniors And incoming freshman. Money they would have gotten before this happen.

I also know some high school players that are thinking of reclassifying because if this. So ya, it affects all of them.

I do think that the NCAA should not have given anyone an extra year in college. And by the way, people could also argue they did the right thing. I don’t think anyone is more right or wrong than the other. Most people are going to base their arguments based on their own situations and biases. And like what happens many times, people are going to over complicate things, and give all sorts of scenarios that support the way they believe. But those same people aren’t experiencing the other side.

I've got a foot in both worlds.

[Justafan]

So do I

[Justafan]

+1 Thorough analysis.

The only aspect I think you understated somewhat is that current Fr/So/Jr have plenty of time to PLAN on a 5 yr arrangement (either 3-2 or 4+1).

Correct - it's roses and sunshine for the current college Fr/So/Jr who have plenty of time to plan out their 5th year.

In addition to the HS 2022s getting the high hard one, the HS 2020s get hammered: they roll into a team with a packed roster and never get to be the senior class, since the HS 2019s finish their eligibility at the same time as the HS 2020s.

Incredibly myopic decision by the NCAA, but I'd expect nothing less from that cabal.

Roses Nd sunshine? Lol. Holy cow. You really don’t know what is going on with some of these players and families that are in college. I’m sure it’s not worse than the high school kids, but it isn’t better for all of them either.

Heh - that's where you'd be wrong.

Oh boy. That makes what your saying even worse. . Yikes.

[smoova]

Oh boy. That makes what your saying even worse. . Yikes.

[Homer]

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 very sympathetic to the concerns you and others have raised here, but respectfully I don't think this is the right way of looking at it.

From the NCAA's perspective, they aren't the ones handing out anything of tangible value, nor are they "taking it away" from anyone else. The NCAA doesn't give you a uniform, or admissions support, or scholarship money, or playing time. The schools do that. The NCAA's brief is to define the pool of individuals eligible to be given those things, but the discretion to give them or not remains entirely the schools'.

The question before the NCAA is whether someone can fairly be said to have exhausted a year of eligibility if they were involuntarily required to stop playing for reasons of public health beyond their control with less than half the season complete. Is their situation more like that of someone who appeared in several early-season contests and then was benched (eligibility lost) or someone who missed more than about 2/3 of the season due to injury (can request medical redshirt to preserve eligibility)? I think there's a pretty strong equitable case for considering all 2020 spring athletes to have retained their eligibility -- which, again, doesn't take eligibility away from anybody else, now or later.

To the extent there's a problem of balancing inequities, because you've expanded the pool of people allowed to get the goodies without increasing the actual stock of goodies, that problem now falls to the schools/coaches/programs. Given that there are no good options, that seems to me like the right call. If somebody has to lose out, I'd rather have that determination being made on a case-by-case basis by the coaches close to the ground, rather than in a categorical way by the NCAA.

[njfanlax]

NCAA Medical Hardship Policy for Division 1 players

NCAA Division I – An athlete must not have participated in more than three contests or 30 percent of their season schedule (whichever is greater) and not after the halfway point of the season (based on the number of contests rather than a particular date).

I think every college team in all 14 NCAA spring sports has already played over 3 games this season. So I’m not sure how anyone would qualify for a redshirt waiver.

So should they be unilaterally bending the rules for the approximately 150,000 NCAA spring sport athletes who lost out on the majority of this season?

[thetruth]

NCAA Medical Hardship Policy for Division 1 players

NCAA Division I – An athlete must not have participated in more than three contests or 30 percent of their season schedule (whichever is greater) and not after the halfway point of the season (based on the number of contests rather than a particular date).

I think every college team in all 14 NCAA spring sports has already played over 3 games this season. So I’m not sure how anyone would qualify for a redshirt waiver.

So should they be unilaterally bending the rules for the approximately 150,000 NCAA spring sport athletes who lost out on the majority of this season?

+1
No, they shouldn't IMO. When WWII came around, no one who left college to fight in it worried about 5th years. This whole debate has exposed a ton of softness out there as well as an immense sense of entitlement. Why do these spring college athletes deserve something no one else anywhere is getting from this disaster?
Bad things happen and life isn't fair, and coming to terms with that fact early in life is pretty valuable.

[palaxoff]

So IL finally chimed in https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nces/56177

I have spoken to a few coaches, my impression is they are waiting for more direction from the NCAA. They are in the dark as to what it means and waiting for some guidance. You can't plan for a game if you don't know the rules.

It appears the NCAA waved a magic wand to keep their cash cow (March Madness) protected and really haven't thought out what doing that really means. You know kind of like the how the Government works.

Shoot then Aim .

[AreaLax]

So IL finally chimed in https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... nces/56177

I have spoken to a few coaches, my impression is they are waiting for more direction from the NCAA. They are in the dark as to what it means and waiting for some guidance. You can't plan for a game if you don't know the rules.

It appears the NCAA waved a magic wand to keep their cash cow (March Madness) protected and really haven't thought out what doing that really means. You know kind of like the how the Government works.

Shoot then Aim .

The article also goes on to say there are Sr. who have entered the transfer portal since the announcement. It is interesting they are not saying who when in the past they were quick to announce them.

[DMac]

Isn't the fact of the matter you just can't makle up for lost time without creating a huge log jam and phukin' the whole system up? I feel as badly as anyone for those missing the season (particularly the seniors) but it really amounts to just one of those tough breaks in life (if this is the worst one these athletes experience they can all consider themselves very lucky) and you just have to move on from there. In my day a whole lot of these athletes would have have been a whole lot more concerned about the draft interfering with their plans than a lost lacrosse (or whatever the sport) season, so I figure they'll all come out of it alright in the end. It is what it is, you've just got to move on from there. JMHO.