Aren't there all sorts of rules and regulations that, absent that rule, an individual (of whatever age) would make a different decision, but for the rule or regulation?wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:23 pmi get it. you would rather other people make that decision for them.bar_down wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 5:19 pmWhy do you assume it doesn’t benefit the player? Imagine the horror of not being the 60th player on the Hopkins roster but being a contributor at Dartmouth.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:59 pmok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.bar_down wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:53 pmIt happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:36 pmso then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?bar_down wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 4:24 pmThe non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:58 pmwho needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?River Donkey wrote: ↑Sat Oct 16, 2021 12:34 pm Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.
Every year kids at the schools with bloated rosters transfer because they can’t travel with the team, let alone play. Or consider the kids who quit the sport because they get to their “dream” school only to find out they will never see the field.
Humans make all sorts of decisions, that are against their actual self-interest, much less a greater public good, yet make them for some initial, or short term, or simply perceived benefit. We're far from "rational" sometimes, and sometimes while we are indeed "rational" it's to the expense of the greater good... And so, we "regulate".
This isn't far afield from the debate we had about ER and the reasons why some rules really were necessary to provide a structure in which coaches didn't feel competitively compelled to do things they knew in their hearts wasn't good for the sport and youth generally, and was problematic as well for them...yet, felt compelled to participate, even 'out-compete'...same for the kids and their families.
I do agree with you, generally, that it's good to err to the side of individual choice, but sometimes, having some rules actually helps everyone over the long term.
Let's just say, it's worth considering. And if so, what rules would make the most sense?
What are the downsides, really?
Indeed, ohh the horror of not being the 60th player on the Syracuse roster...not so sure that guy actually is a starter at Lehigh or Bucknell or...Tufts or..., though, but indeed he'd get every bit or better an education and college experience and might well get more playing time or sooner. But man, that Syracuse jersey is enticing to that rising junior...