Transfer Portal

[Bart]

If they go back on the one year extension, it will be a cluster....I also have a junior and I am sure she is counting on at least having the opportunity to take a 5th year. Life is complicated now, but the NCAA cant pull the rug out and just say "my bad". That would be a colossal mistake.

I couldn't agree more Doctor! I hope the NCAA does the right thing by all classes. I am more worried conferences will be inflexible.

What do you say to the high school kids, in particular class of 2022 kids, who will see the amount of roster spots diminished significantly by giving college sophomores another year? The high school kids also lost an entire year - and now would be missing out at the opportunity to actually play in college altogether as opposed to missing (unfortunately) 2/3'ds of one season? What about the college sophomores and freshman, some of whom might not even play that much - what did they "lose" in terms of playing time? It's not just college kids that have been impacted, and making a decision to benefit only college kids will doubly impact the high school student-athletes.

I have a bit of a unique perspective to answer your question as I have both a college senior and a high school 2022. I can only tell you what I told my own 2022..life is not always fair and if you want to play D1 in college, work harder! There is an almost unlimited ability for high students to continue to play women’s lacrosse in college across all three divisions. I get that money is a factor for some kids, but I honestly believe the number of scholarships per class for 2022 won’t change. As far as number of spots in the 2022 recruiting class it’s like every other year...6 to 11 or 12 spots and will depend on injuries, kids deciding not to play, etc. like it always does. The senior bubble will move on in a year and underclassmen who aren’t playing by senior year won’t stay and take future spots. On the last point about playing time, college lacrosse works a bit differently than high school. In most high schools the odds of playing increase as you progress towards senior year and put in your time. In college and this will sound a bit cold, if you are not on the field freshmen year and playing regularly by Sophomore year, the odds of seeing the field decrease exponentially. Yes there are exceptions to this rule, but as long as Coaches are recruiting their next future stars there will always be competition for spots.

I agree with LaxGuy. I have a junior in both College and High School. Yes they both lost a year. One of them may get it back, one wont. One thing that will affect High school players is the current 2022 and 2023 class bumping up against the potential of a College Sophomore and Freshman class that may have a 5th year. Depending on how the NCAA and the institutions handle the number of scholarships and the roster sizes, those 2022 and 23's face potential reduced recruiting class sizes. At the worse/best case scenario, the additional year ends with the current College Freshmen (2019 HS Grads) as 5th years in the 2023-24 School year. So, that year will graduate two classes (the current Freshmen and the incoming Freshmen (2020 HS Grads). The 2020 and 2021 classes are for the most part (at least most D1s and high D3s) committed at pre-epidemic (normal) numbers. Again, not knowing how the NCAA or the institutions will set their policies, the 2022's and 2023's may face reduced class sizes as the teams try to get back to "regular" team sizes. This "rightsizing" likely ends and things go back to normal with the 2024 HS class. On the other hand, some schools may just say, lets carry more girls for the 4 years and just recruit like normal. That may happen and I think that is the basis of Laxfan's point. Yes, increased team sizes will limit playing opportunities. But as LaxGuy suggests, that will mostly affect the mid to lower level player on that team. That sucks, but as we are seeing right now, life can be hard. The cream will rise to the top and the top players will not be affected by the additional competition. If, it causes Cindy Loo Blue Chip to fight for a spot against AA 5th years, that only makes her better. It may delay her starting role by a year, but she will be a better player/teammate because of the challenge of fighting for that spot. Look at UNC - their 2nd and 3rd team beats, or at least competes with, most D1 teams. UNC's starters may practice against players that are better than other schools' starters. UNC will still get the top players in their states/regions with the chance to play with and become the best of the best. Just my 2 cents...

Can't this, the bold, be said as relating to the situation of every single current college player? By adding the year back are you are just changing who this sucks for?

[DMac]

Yes, and you can't around that. I know it sucks for those who lost a season and I feel sorry for every one of them, I really do, but you can't pick and chose who it's going to suck for. Everyone lost the season and you just have to move on from there, there is no going back in time, life goes on.

[laxfan22]

Just to be perfectly clear, the increased competition while IN college doesn't bother me. It's the removal of opportunity to get INTO college that is my concern. And, with budgets being tighter - which it certainly will be the case - I would expect lacrosse (and baseball/softball, etc.) will get the mandate to cut costs and not increase budget sizes. Consider if 2 kids per D1 take up a 5th year offer, that's 200 plus opportunities that are GONE. That's equal to 25 or so entire classes being removed. So, a girl/boy that would normally place in, say, a Centennial Conference or a NESCAC will be pushed 25 schools "below" where they would normally be. That's a huge, huge drop in a sport that preaches "grow the game". We have had discussions with my 2022 about casting a wider net and improving and I'm not sitting here having a pity party for her - life isn't fair - injuries happen, coaches leave, etc. And, it sucks for all kids who lost a year - but objectively, an NCAA decision will massively negatively impact 2022s and 2023s much more than any others, and that's not right and entirely preventable.

[Dr. Tact]

Just to be perfectly clear, the increased competition while IN college doesn't bother me. It's the removal of opportunity to get INTO college that is my concern. And, with budgets being tighter - which it certainly will be the case - I would expect lacrosse (and baseball/softball, etc.) will get the mandate to cut costs and not increase budget sizes. Consider if 2 kids per D1 take up a 5th year offer, that's 200 plus opportunities that are GONE. That's equal to 25 or so entire classes being removed. So, a girl/boy that would normally place in, say, a Centennial Conference or a NESCAC will be pushed 25 schools "below" where they would normally be. That's a huge, huge drop in a sport that preaches "grow the game". We have had discussions with my 2022 about casting a wider net and improving and I'm not sitting here having a pity party for her - life isn't fair - injuries happen, coaches leave, etc. And, it sucks for all kids who lost a year - but objectively, an NCAA decision will massively negatively impact 2022s and 2023s much more than any others, and that's not right and entirely preventable.

I am not sure I follow your 2 kids argument. If 2 players come back for every team, that is 200+ players, but how does that automatically push a Centennial player down 25 teams? Yes, some trickling might occur, but we dont know if classes will stay normal or shrink for the 22's and 23's ....It is a fair argument that the 22's and 23's, compared to 2020s or 21's, may be faced with reduced recruiting classes, but it isnt assured. There may be additional scholarships for that 2019 5th year class. Or Teams may just keep taking 10-12 girl classes. That wouldnt push anyone down 25 teams in the rankings.... If the 5th years players are there for the next 4 years, all classes going forward (2020-2023) will be affected - scholarships, playing time, enlarged teams, etc. If the coaches reduce class sizes to get back to normal as quickly as possible, it likely will affect some 2022 and 2023 class sizes. If scholarships are not increased, and, institutions do not alter the current/promised individual allocations to the 2016-2021's, then yes 2022's and 2023's could be getting less until the 4 year classes are regularized. Yes, both of the above suck for those classes. The most immediate concern is that if you are a 2022 and people haven't already seen you, your typical recruiting window is now very much narrowed. That does suck. But, anecdotely, there are still D1 and D3's schools that have held onto offers for 2021s - stating they would be watching them in Spring.

Could you expound on the following? I am not sure where you are coming from

and that's not right and entirely preventable.

[Lurker]

I think this 5th year of eligibility will help the women's game overall. The women's game has grown so fast over the past 10-15 years. The trickle down effect you mention will help those recent start up programs get more competitive and faster. For example, Akron U started up this season. A year or so ago at this time they were taking just about anyone who wanted to play there. They were literally emailing HS coaches in Ohio asking if they had any D2 or D3 commits who might be interested in playing D1.

Also, at least in the midwest there are a lot of D2 and D3 schools that are playing with rosters of 13-16 players. Even with this 5th year of eligibility I think there will be plenty of opportunities for all the current HS girls who want to play in college. Yes, a handful of girls who would have otherwise been D1 might have to play D2 or D3. A few girls who might have been on the radar of a top 10 D2 or D3 program might have to go to a "lesser" team... but in the end I think everyone will have a place to play if they want to play.

[Lurker]

And this may have been mentioned before but in the end I don't see that many players taking advantage of the 5th year. This is not football or hoops. These players aren't getting full-rides. Many don't have the financial means to pay for extra (unnecessary) semesters or years of school just to play another season of lax. Also, I'm generalizing here a bit but.... lacrosse players tend to be better students than a lot of sports. Most lot of these kids are on pace to graduate on time and many will already have job offers or career plans that will take priority over an extra season of lax.

[Dr. Tact]

Can't this, the bold, be said as relating to the situation of every single current college player? By adding the year back are you are just changing who this sucks for?

So, depending on where your player falls in the HS classes 2016-2023, you are going to have a different opinion on who it sucks for. I just feel that if the NCAA indicates that the NCAA is going to give 1 year back to NCAA Spring athletes, it should be all NCAA Spring athletes. It would be ridiculous if only the senior class was awarded an additional year. That would be benefiting the 25% over the 75%. Fair is a relative word, but in my opinion, all current athletes should get the same deal. Now, HS athletes will face challenges now and potentially up until they matriculate and then until they graduate. Who can guess what that will be? It could really suck as Laxfan and others have indicated for the 2022 and 2023 HS classes. As they will face the most uncertainty. Unfortunately, the NCAA isn't in the business of worrying about future Student athletes as much as their current ones.

[edit] also, as far as things that suck...the team that was gelling (Dayton or Gonzaga) in the D1 Hoops or that WLAX program that was clicking this year....they dont get that chance at the ring and may not get it again....

[Dr. Tact]

And this may have been mentioned before but in the end I don't see that many players taking advantage of the 5th year. This is not football or hoops. These players aren't getting full-rides. Many don't have the financial means to pay for extra (unnecessary) semesters or years of school just to play another season of lax. Also, I'm generalizing here a bit but.... lacrosse players tend to be better students than a lot of sports. Most lot of these kids are on pace to graduate on time and many will already have job offers or career plans that will take priority over an extra season of lax.

This is absolutely true...I think your biggest rate of return will be in the top 10-15 teams. In addition, I think some of those will take advantage and get some transfers. So, big girl Lax may have more than the rest of D1.

[njfanlax]

Just to be perfectly clear, the increased competition while IN college doesn't bother me. It's the removal of opportunity to get INTO college that is my concern. And, with budgets being tighter - which it certainly will be the case - I would expect lacrosse (and baseball/softball, etc.) will get the mandate to cut costs and not increase budget sizes. Consider if 2 kids per D1 take up a 5th year offer, that's 200 plus opportunities that are GONE. That's equal to 25 or so entire classes being removed. So, a girl/boy that would normally place in, say, a Centennial Conference or a NESCAC will be pushed 25 schools "below" where they would normally be. That's a huge, huge drop in a sport that preaches "grow the game". We have had discussions with my 2022 about casting a wider net and improving and I'm not sitting here having a pity party for her - life isn't fair - injuries happen, coaches leave, etc. And, it sucks for all kids who lost a year - but objectively, an NCAA decision will massively negatively impact 2022s and 2023s much more than any others, and that's not right and entirely preventable.

I am not sure I follow your 2 kids argument. If 2 players come back for every team, that is 200+ players, but how does that automatically push a Centennial player down 25 teams? Yes, some trickling might occur, but we dont know if classes will stay normal or shrink for the 22's and 23's ....It is a fair argument that the 22's and 23's, compared to 2020s or 21's, may be faced with reduced recruiting classes, but it isnt assured. There may be additional scholarships for that 2019 5th year class. Or Teams may just keep taking 10-12 girl classes. That wouldnt push anyone down 25 teams in the rankings.... If the 5th years players are there for the next 4 years, all classes going forward (2020-2023) will be affected - scholarships, playing time, enlarged teams, etc. If the coaches reduce class sizes to get back to normal as quickly as possible, it likely will affect some 2022 and 2023 class sizes. If scholarships are not increased, and, institutions do not alter the current/promised individual allocations to the 2016-2021's, then yes 2022's and 2023's could be getting less until the 4 year classes are regularized. Yes, both of the above suck for those classes. The most immediate concern is that if you are a 2022 and people haven't already seen you, your typical recruiting window is now very much narrowed. That does suck. But, anecdotely, there are still D1 and D3's schools that have held onto offers for 2021s - stating they would be watching them in Spring.

Could you expound on the following? I am not sure where you are coming from

and that's not right and entirely preventable.

Yes, the immediate concern for 2022s is getting seen. The recruiting window is definitely going to be very much narrowed. But the other concern is that for this recruiting class, schools will try to enforce fiscal discipline and shrink their rosters back to pre-coronavirus sizes. We are assuming they have no choice but to accept the 2020s and probably the 2021s who they already recruited along with any additional 5th year seniors. This will results in the enlarged classes for next year and the year after. Assuming colleges on average"shrink" back to 8 players/class and they keep 2 5th year seniors for the 2022 recruiting year, the 2022s this fall will be trying to be recruited into a lacrosse market with effectively 25% fewer openings. One could easily argue that lacrosse coaches would prefer to take as many qualified 5th seniors that they can over a HS recruit, especially considering that all 2022 HS players could be playing 0 lacrosse since 11/2019 by the time the recruiting window opens. Because of the trickle down effect, 25% of 2022 HS lacrosse players who normally would have committed to a college lacrosse are now out of luck with nowhere to go to play college lacrosse. The same roster effects apply to the 2023 class, too. But hopefully, they will get back the normal recruiting window next summer.

That's why laxfan22 is upset. Current college players have the opportunity to be made "whole" by getting an additional year. This comes at the cost of HS players who are further behind in the pipeline and have lost their lacrosse season, too. These HS players (2022 and 2023) could lose a 2nd time by being squeezed out by the 5th year seniors and never have the opportunity to play college lacrosse at all.

[Dr. Tact]

Yes, the immediate concern for 2022s is getting seen. The recruiting window is definitely going to be very much narrowed. But the other concern is that for this recruiting class, schools will try to enforce fiscal discipline and shrink their rosters back to pre-coronavirus sizes. We are assuming they have no choice but to accept the 2020s and probably the 2021s who they already recruited along with any additional 5th year seniors. This will results in the enlarged classes for next year and the year after. Assuming colleges on average"shrink" back to 8 players/class and they keep 2 5th year seniors for the 2022 recruiting year, the 2022s this fall will be trying to be recruited into a lacrosse market with effectively 25% fewer openings. One could easily argue that lacrosse coaches would prefer to take as many qualified 5th seniors that they can over a HS recruit, especially considering that all 2022 HS players could be playing 0 lacrosse since 11/2019 by the time the recruiting window opens. Because of the trickle down effect, 25% of 2022 HS lacrosse players who normally would have committed to a college lacrosse are now out of luck with nowhere to go to play NCAA lacrosse. The same roster effects apply to the 2023 class, too. But hopefully, they will get back the normal recruiting window next summer.

Well, I acknowledge what you have stated about potential reductions in class sizes above in my comments as well. I just dont know that it will be universal that all schools will reduce their classes from an average of 10 to 8 because of an expected (2) 5th year players. We just dont know that only 2 players will return. Could be more, or less....We also dont know that all schools will reduce their classes. If I am UNC and can get 10 Blue chips, why would I let two of them go to Duke or other....No one is on a full scholarship anyway, it just costs the team/department a fraction more for all the aspects of fielding a team...unless the NCAA says you can fund more schollies over the 12...then there is more significant cost to the institution/department/team.

BTW, I dont know what the average class is for D1 across the NCAA, but if it went from 10 to 8 for the 2022's/2023's, wouldnt that be a reduction of 20% not 25%? Dont shoot me...

[njbill]

Dr. Tact gets an A in today’s on-line math lesson.

[Dr. Tact]

Dr. Tact gets an A in today’s on-line math lesson.

...I hope all the posts above are taken with a grain of salt. I know nothing more than anyone else and I hope my contrarian views/points are not taken personally. I know it sucks for all of you and your families. My (or my daughters') pain isnt the same as yours, so please dont take it as me being insensitive.

[njfanlax]

Yes, the immediate concern for 2022s is getting seen. The recruiting window is definitely going to be very much narrowed. But the other concern is that for this recruiting class, schools will try to enforce fiscal discipline and shrink their rosters back to pre-coronavirus sizes. We are assuming they have no choice but to accept the 2020s and probably the 2021s who they already recruited along with any additional 5th year seniors. This will results in the enlarged classes for next year and the year after. Assuming colleges on average"shrink" back to 8 players/class and they keep 2 5th year seniors for the 2022 recruiting year, the 2022s this fall will be trying to be recruited into a lacrosse market with effectively 25% fewer openings. One could easily argue that lacrosse coaches would prefer to take as many qualified 5th seniors that they can over a HS recruit, especially considering that all 2022 HS players could be playing 0 lacrosse since 11/2019 by the time the recruiting window opens. Because of the trickle down effect, 25% of 2022 HS lacrosse players who normally would have committed to a college lacrosse are now out of luck with nowhere to go to play NCAA lacrosse. The same roster effects apply to the 2023 class, too. But hopefully, they will get back the normal recruiting window next summer.

Well, I acknowledge what you have stated about potential reductions in class sizes above in my comments as well. I just dont know that it will be universal that all schools will reduce their classes from an average of 10 to 8 because of an expected (2) 5th year players. We just dont know that only 2 players will return. Could be more, or less....We also dont know that all schools will reduce their classes. If I am UNC and can get 10 Blue chips, why would I let two of them go to Duke or other....No one is on a full scholarship anyway, it just costs the team/department a fraction more for all the aspects of fielding a team...unless the NCAA says you can fund more schollies over the 12...then there is more significant cost to the institution/department/team.

BTW, I dont know what the average class is for D1 across the NCAA, but if it went from 10 to 8 for the 2022's/2023's, wouldnt that be a reduction of 20% not 25%? Dont shoot me...

I agree that if no college sophomores or freshmen take their 5th year exception, then there will be no effect on HS 2022 and 2023 classes, respectively. No one knows what will happen. Yes, if it goes from 10 to 8, the reduction is only 20%. But if it goes from any number to 0, the reduction is 100% and no HS 2022 or 2023 gets recruited!!! My point was to illustrate that small changes at the microscopic level can lead to much bigger effects at the macroscopic level.

The NCAA ruling applies to all spring sports. Do you think that colleges are willing to increase the roster sizes for all spring sports (potentially 14 teams) for 4 consecutive years to make their athletes/commits happy?

Do you think that D1 coaches won't be eyeing the transfer portal (especially Ivy League/Patriot League) or looking at her own roster to cherry pick as many 5th year players as possible to stock the team for the next 4 years? For them, stocking up on 5th year players for the next 4 years could be much more important than recruiting the next wave of HS players.

Again, no one knows and it could all turn out to be meaningless. But I think people should at least admit there are potentially significant consequences from the NCAA proposed changes. Benefiting some could hurt others a lot more.

[Lax247]

Yes, the immediate concern for 2022s is getting seen. The recruiting window is definitely going to be very much narrowed. But the other concern is that for this recruiting class, schools will try to enforce fiscal discipline and shrink their rosters back to pre-coronavirus sizes. We are assuming they have no choice but to accept the 2020s and probably the 2021s who they already recruited along with any additional 5th year seniors. This will results in the enlarged classes for next year and the year after. Assuming colleges on average"shrink" back to 8 players/class and they keep 2 5th year seniors for the 2022 recruiting year, the 2022s this fall will be trying to be recruited into a lacrosse market with effectively 25% fewer openings. One could easily argue that lacrosse coaches would prefer to take as many qualified 5th seniors that they can over a HS recruit, especially considering that all 2022 HS players could be playing 0 lacrosse since 11/2019 by the time the recruiting window opens. Because of the trickle down effect, 25% of 2022 HS lacrosse players who normally would have committed to a college lacrosse are now out of luck with nowhere to go to play NCAA lacrosse. The same roster effects apply to the 2023 class, too. But hopefully, they will get back the normal recruiting window next summer.

Well, I acknowledge what you have stated about potential reductions in class sizes above in my comments as well. I just dont know that it will be universal that all schools will reduce their classes from an average of 10 to 8 because of an expected (2) 5th year players. We just dont know that only 2 players will return. Could be more, or less....We also dont know that all schools will reduce their classes. If I am UNC and can get 10 Blue chips, why would I let two of them go to Duke or other....No one is on a full scholarship anyway, it just costs the team/department a fraction more for all the aspects of fielding a team...unless the NCAA says you can fund more schollies over the 12...then there is more significant cost to the institution/department/team.

BTW, I dont know what the average class is for D1 across the NCAA, but if it went from 10 to 8 for the 2022's/2023's, wouldnt that be a reduction of 20% not 25%? Dont shoot me...

I agree that if no college sophomores or freshman take their 5th year exception, then there will be no effect on HS 2022 and 2023 classes, respectively. No one knows what will happen. Yes, if it goes from 10 to 8, the reduction is only 20%. But if it goes from any number to 0, the reduction is 100% and no HS 2022 or 2023 gets recruited!!! My point was to illustrate that small changes at the microscopic level can lead to much bigger effects at the macroscopic level.

The NCAA ruling applies to all spring sports. Do you think that colleges are willing to increase the roster sizes for all spring sports (potentially 14 teams) for 4 consecutive years to make their athletes/commits happy?

Do you think that D1 coaches won't be eying the transfer portal (especially Ivy League/Patriot League) or looking at her own roster to cherry pick as many 5th year players as possible to stock the team for the next 4 years? For them, stocking up on 5th year players for the next 4 years could be much more important than recruiting the next wave of HS players.

Again, no one knows and it could all turn out to be meaningless. But I think people should at least admit there are potentially significant consequences from the NCAA proposed changes. Benefiting some could hurt others a lot more.

I think we will be suprised by the amount of 5th year seniors who transfer to other teams. I think the balance of power on a few teams will shift as well. I don’t want to say power teams will arise, but some teams are going to get stronger. Why pay for a lot of $ for that 5th year out of state when the state I live in has a great team with a masters program...

[8meterPA]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents from discussion with Daughter who is at a high academic/mid tier lacrosse school...so academics come first, lax 2nd. None of the seniors want to or are coming back - they are headed off to grad school, med school or have jobs lined up.

My daughter is indifferent as to whether she would consider a 5th year, she's would have to transfer or go to grad school. She's a sophomore in college and feels she still has a lot of lacrosse ahead of her, and it's tough to balance between academics, lax, friends, social etc.

So for non-lax schools, ie, other than the top 15 or so, I think only a very small percentage of seniors and even underclassman would take a 5th year.

[Dr. Tact]

I agree that if no college sophomores or freshmen take their 5th year exception, then there will be no effect on HS 2022 and 2023 classes, respectively. No one knows what will happen. Yes, if it goes from 10 to 8, the reduction is only 20%. But if it goes from any number to 0, the reduction is 100% and no HS 2022 or 2023 gets recruited!!! My point was to illustrate that small changes at the microscopic level can lead to much bigger effects at the macroscopic level.

Yes. There is no way to know and your concern is valid. I did not intend to say it wasnt. Lorenz's Butterfly wings and Tornado. I get it.

The NCAA ruling applies to all spring sports. Do you think that colleges are willing to increase the roster sizes for all spring sports (potentially 14 teams) for 4 consecutive years to make their athletes/commits happy?

I don't know. You raise a good question. If I were to guess, some would increase roster sizes. I am not sure that the motivation would be to keep Student athletes/commits happy. It might be more program driven performance, but that is just me thinking that the number one priority in high level sports isnt always the student.

Do you think that D1 coaches won't be eying the transfer portal (especially Ivy League/Patriot League) or looking at her own roster to cherry pick as many 5th year players as possible to stock the team for the next 4 years? For them, stocking up on 5th year players for the next 4 years could be much more important than recruiting the next wave of HS players.

You absolutely have a point there. However, it is a short return versus longer benefit situation. Proven versus unknown....If I am a top team, I want both. How that happens, I dont know.

Again, no one knows and it could all turn out to be meaningless. But I think people should at least admit there are potentially significant consequences from the NCAA proposed changes. Benefiting some could hurt others a lot more.

If I didnt convince you already, I admit that there are potentially significant consequences. Depending on how it shakes out, some will be hurt more than others. I am not sure the level of pain, but I absolutely get your point that the 2022's and 20223's could be the most affected.

[laxfan22]

How's this -- i totally recognize that there is something special about a senior year - and i recognize that most seniors are probably already looking towards grad school and jobs that are hopefully still available after we return to normal, so I think the amount of seniors taking adverting of a fifth year is probably lower than it is for juniors/sophomores/freshman.

How about we allow a fifth year for seniors only. How about we allow for the next 4 years the season to be extended to add additional games - maybe 3 more in 2021, 2 more in 2022 and 1 more in 2023. That wouldn't be adding a post season or even the exact amount of "lost" games but it would give "back" something to "lost" games. It would increase costs for travel/busses, etc., but not require larger rosters.

[LaxGuy17]

The recruiting topic is an interesting one. Really only impacts 2022s at this point but 2023s a little. For 2022s June is top tourney and showcases. Then July is usually camps and prospect days. Then quiet period starts at some point in August. If we lose June to Corona, most camps and prospect days overlap, so it will be hard to get seen by more than a few coaches and those prospect days will be oversold and hard to get into. This means recruiting will have to be expanded into deep Fall at a time when Coaches on focused on their now bigger rosters and freshman evaluations. Not sure how this is going to work.

[njfanlax]

The recruiting topic is an interesting one. Really only impacts 2022s at this point but 2023s a little. For 2022s June is top tourney and showcases. Then July is usually camps and prospect days. Then quiet period starts at some point in August. If we lose June to Corona, most camps and prospect days overlap, so it will be hard to get seen by more than a few coaches and those prospect days will be oversold and hard to get into. This means recruiting will have to be expanded into deep Fall at a time when Coaches on focused on their now bigger rosters and freshman evaluations. Not sure how this is going to work.

Yes, it could be a perfect storm for 2022s if summer lacrosse (June and July) is cancelled. That also means that all spring standardized test dates are cancelled. So when September rolls around, the 2022s could be busy attending weekend lacrosse clinics (if they can get in and hopefully they were able to effectively practice and keep in shape during their 10 month hiatus), while simultaneously trying to keep up with their school work, and in addition trying to squeeze in a fall standardized test date (hope they studied hard during the summer). On top of that, they may have no idea how many fewer roster spots are now available for them to compete for. College coaches might not like what they see in this year's class of HS recruits.

[LaxGuy17]

Okay time for a quick survey...3 Questions with multiple choice Answers...

1) Who will the extended 5th year apply to, assuming Spring Athletes only...
A) Seniors
B) All Years
C) Nobody

2) Will transfers be permitted?
A) Yes
B) No

3) How will scholarships be expanded?
A) Across The Board expansion (i.e. 3 additional)
B) Seniors keep what they have
C) No expansion