Roster Limits for lacrosse

[MDlaxfan76]

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??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The 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.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It 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.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

Why 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.

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.

i get it. you would rather other people make that decision for them.

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?

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...

[wgdsr]

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??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The 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.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It 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.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

Why 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.

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.

i get it. you would rather other people make that decision for them.

I think that a fairly simplistic way of looking at it but you do you boo.

it's an offshoot of what you're advising but it's absolutely the case.
it doesn't mean your idea is evil, but that is a consequence. so some might not see it the same way.
btw, a lot of those kids will be going nescac and good other schools in div 3, etc. or not playing altogether for another school experience. lower tier schools are already losing to those schools, they're not picking off acc recruits in any envoronment.

[wgdsr]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

[smoova]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

[wgdsr]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

[River Donkey]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

Yes

[River Donkey]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

The point is, if lacrosse wasn’t on the table would they still want to go to that school.

[wgdsr]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

The point is, if lacrosse wasn’t on the table would they still want to go to that school.

so you would rather they go to a different school that if lacrosse wasn't on the table they wouldn't go?
i am trying to understand.

[bison137]

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??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The 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.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It 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.

Majors’ first class was much bigger than 50. The lowest estimate was 65 and some said it was close to 100. Jackie Sherrill, the top asststant at the time, is on record saying they brought in 76 freshmen.

[Big Dog]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

The point is, if lacrosse wasn’t on the table would they still want to go to that school.

But for some, its not either/or. I live in SoCal and know several kids who have walked-on to USC football (scout team) instead of aiming at say a Mountain West team where the chance of PT is much greater. Instead, they take a chance to be part of a national championship team, or get a picture taken in the Rose Bowl. (yeah, I know, different sport, but still big time D1.)

[InsiderRoll]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

The point is, if lacrosse wasn’t on the table would they still want to go to that school.

But for some, its not either/or. I live in SoCal and know several kids who have walked-on to USC football (scout team) instead of aiming at say a Mountain West team where the chance of PT is much greater. Instead, they take a chance to be part of a national championship team, or get a picture taken in the Rose Bowl. (yeah, I know, different sport, but still big time D1.)

I don’t think that has much to do with the Rose Bowl. USC is one of the most desired schools in the world. That all makes sense. I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal for schools to carry as many players as they feel is needed. It’s a business, programs should do what’s in their best interest. Many programs do have roster limits, and some of those still being in a bunch of kids and cut the roster down every year. If a player is having a bad experience they can transfer.

[Farfromgeneva]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

But don't limit age restrictions so there's 23-25yr olds on college rosters because that reflects a high cross section on non student athletes...

[smoova]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.

but that rule would now be denying them the chance to both play lacrosse and go to that particular school. so again, denying them their choice.

But they'd still be free to apply without coach support, right?

you would think but i don't get the point.

But don't limit age restrictions so there's 23-25yr olds on college rosters because that reflects a high cross section on non student athletes...

Stop talking crazy! How are we supposed to ensure that lacrosse remains the province of the wealthy if we cannot lock up DI roster spots by sending our little darlings to 6 years of private high school?

[wgdsr]

jr smith tells private school laxers to hold my champagne bottle:
https://hypebeast.com/2021/10/jr-smith- ... f-the-guys

[Farfromgeneva]

jr smith tells private school laxers to hold my champagne bottle:
https://hypebeast.com/2021/10/jr-smith- ... f-the-guys

I'm sure he supplies the weed and coke! And pulls in Stehpon Marbury for "Vaseline parties"

[laxpert]

Roster limits would impact the student who just wants to be part of the team.Most likely a full payer, who doesn’t travel and gets limited reps in practice but cherishes the fellowship and esprit de corps being a team member brings.
On the recruiting side due diligence is required by recruits and parents even more so until extended Covid eligibility ends. With a maximum of 12.5 schollies and liberal transfer policies it’s difficult to accuse anyone of featherbedding.

Wasn’t it Brown that had a self imposed roster limit of 37? for a few years?

[Typical Lax Dad]

jr smith tells private school laxers to hold my champagne bottle:
https://hypebeast.com/2021/10/jr-smith- ... f-the-guys

I read about his first tournament last week. Nice story. I like JR man….he never thought he would be a skip college guy. Bloomed a little late. A nut but I like him.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Roster limits would impact the student who just wants to be part of the team.Most likely a full payer, who doesn’t travel and gets limited reps in practice but cherishes the fellowship and esprit de corps being a team member brings.
On the recruiting side due diligence is required by recruits and parents even more so until extended Covid eligibility ends. With a maximum of 12.5 schollies and liberal transfer policies it’s difficult to accuse anyone of featherbedding.

Wasn’t it Brown that had a self imposed roster limit of 37? for a few years?

Many of the most popular guys on my son’s teams were walk-on players. I ran into a parent recently with a sophomore walk on and I mentioned to her that the nice thing about the team is that nobody cares who was recruited and who walked on. You make your own way. Kids like that will be impacted by roster size at lots of schools, not Joe recruit.

[Farfromgeneva]

Roster limits would impact the student who just wants to be part of the team.Most likely a full payer, who doesn’t travel and gets limited reps in practice but cherishes the fellowship and esprit de corps being a team member brings.
On the recruiting side due diligence is required by recruits and parents even more so until extended Covid eligibility ends. With a maximum of 12.5 schollies and liberal transfer policies it’s difficult to accuse anyone of featherbedding.

Wasn’t it Brown that had a self imposed roster limit of 37? for a few years?

Many of the most popular guys on my son’s teams were walk-on players. I ran into a parent recently with a sophomore walk on and I mentioned to her that the nice thing about the team is that nobody cares who was recruited and who walked on. You make your own way. Kids like that will be impacted by roster size at lots of schools, not Joe recruit.

Yeah this is a solution looking for a problem where one doesn't exist IMO. I have a bigger problem with 24yr olds playing 18-19yr olds but that's a parent/HS convention issue not for the colleges.

I don't think it's comparable to football at all. A D3 example is the best programs (WIAC - state schools with enrollments of 10,000+ vs most 1,500-3,000 student schools in D3, Mt Union and Mary Hardin Baylor in TX) have rosters close to 200 and can run practice where the depth creates real competition and strengthens the starters. I don't see that in D1 lacrosse with 50-60 as it's mostly filler on the back end and a tuition/revenue generation game for most private schools like D3 sports such as football have become.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Roster limits would impact the student who just wants to be part of the team.Most likely a full payer, who doesn’t travel and gets limited reps in practice but cherishes the fellowship and esprit de corps being a team member brings.
On the recruiting side due diligence is required by recruits and parents even more so until extended Covid eligibility ends. With a maximum of 12.5 schollies and liberal transfer policies it’s difficult to accuse anyone of featherbedding.

Wasn’t it Brown that had a self imposed roster limit of 37? for a few years?

Many of the most popular guys on my son’s teams were walk-on players. I ran into a parent recently with a sophomore walk on and I mentioned to her that the nice thing about the team is that nobody cares who was recruited and who walked on. You make your own way. Kids like that will be impacted by roster size at lots of schools, not Joe recruit.

Yeah this is a solution looking for a problem where one doesn't exist IMO. I have a bigger problem with 24yr olds playing 18-19yr olds but that's a parent/HS convention issue not for the colleges.

I don't think it's comparable to football at all. A D3 example is the best programs (WIAC - state schools with enrollments of 10,000+ vs most 1,500-3,000 student schools in D3, Mt Union and Mary Hardin Baylor in TX) have rosters close to 200 and can run practice where the depth creates real competition and strengthens the starters. I don't see that in D1 lacrosse with 50-60 as it's mostly filler on the back end and a tuition/revenue generation game for most private schools like D3 sports such as football have become.

A VP of Finance at a MAAC school told me that very thing. Lacrosse draws from a good demographic and its a revenue stream with post graduation benefits. Soccer is a mercenary sport on most college campuses. Richmond dropped soccer for Lacrosse for a reason.