Transfer Portal 2023

[NElaxtalent]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

Is it? really?
why?

https://www.laxjournal.com/the-great-co ... bers-game/

[Farfromgeneva]

if you took the under on 21.5 pages of the transfer thread before the first necrophilia reference, come claim your prize

i always have the under with ffg around.

Go hard or go home! I come correct.

[Typical Lax Dad]

if you took the under on 21.5 pages of the transfer thread before the first necrophilia reference, come claim your prize

i always have the under with ffg around.

Go hard or go home! I come correct.

No shame in your game.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

Is it? really?
why?

https://www.laxjournal.com/the-great-co ... bers-game/

I'm pretty darn familiar with the dynamics of getting noticed and tagged as a recruited athlete, all the more challenging at the school(s) you want the most.

That includes the reality that most players, including many who have devoted quite a lot of sweat and time to being noticed, simply don't get recruited by the top schools, the next tier, the next tier, etc...

Happens every year. And yes, all the more intense due to backlogs.

Likewise, playing time. Happens every year.
And yes, all the more intense due to backlogs.

But that doesn't answer my question about the bolded in red above, and "the fix was worse than the cause"...what was the reasonable, fair, indeed better alternative?

I can imagine decisions that would have been better for classes coming up, but at the cost for those already engaged. Not sure I see a solution without such tradeoffs.

Serious question as to your meaning.

[Farfromgeneva]

if you took the under on 21.5 pages of the transfer thread before the first necrophilia reference, come claim your prize

i always have the under with ffg around.

Go hard or go home! I come correct.

No shame in your game.

It’s all about plate appearances. Swing and miss? Step back into the box and take another rip.

[wgdsr]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

[wgdsr]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

it's over. sorry.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

it's over. sorry.

that's my take too...water under the bridge...

[Laxmaninamillion]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

Season was canceled after 7 games for most teams. That’s half a season. To cause the next four classes to have an extra group of players ahead of them (2020 class will never be the senior class except for Ivy and Patriot) just isn’t fair to those recruits. Should have let seniors play another year and that’s it. Would only effect one year.

[MDlaxfan76]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

Season was canceled after 7 games for most teams. That’s half a season. To cause the next four classes to have an extra group of players ahead of them (2020 class will never be the senior class except for Ivy and Patriot) just isn’t fair to those recruits. Should have let seniors play another year and that’s it. Would only effect one year.

4 games for the Ivies. Then an entire season, with maybe a scrimmage-like game or two...

But I see your argument...that group of players, tough luck. Don't cost any other classes, just those 4 classes...

But what makes it worse that more players are competing for fewer slots?
Most players don't make it anyway...

Seems to me that a lot of players aren't sticking around for another year (or two), especially given the $ cost of more time in school, so it's not exactly a whole class we're talking about...just a rather small handful in the grand scheme.

But maybe my math is wrong?

From the list posted in the thread, looks to me like 2-4 players per team considering a transfer, most or at least many for extra year; some just one, only a couple schools with more than 4. So, maybe an average of 20% of each class year?

[Typical Lax Dad]

And yet the NCAA wasn't smart enough to think thru how their rash decision affected the next 4-5 years of athletes with bloated rosters of 5th & 6th & 7th yr transfer athletes playing in front of 4 year athletes.

0:30 seconds of critical thinking would have lead them to realize that the fix was worse than the cause.

agreed. lot of adults making decisions for "youth" sports do a turrible job of it nowadays. i hope the next generation is better, but don't like the trends and expect things could get worse.

i will say for the covid generation, expect they will pull positives out of it all.

I'm still perplexed as to what a better set of decisions would have been from the NCAA...and I'm no fan of the NCAA!

Yes, lots of bad decisions about 'youth sports' though...I like the word, 'turrible'...

Season was canceled after 7 games for most teams. That’s half a season. To cause the next four classes to have an extra group of players ahead of them (2020 class will never be the senior class except for Ivy and Patriot) just isn’t fair to those recruits. Should have let seniors play another year and that’s it. Would only effect one year.

Every college basketball player was granted an extra year and most played close to a complete season.

[calourie]

I'll be curious to see how the Ivies and Patriots perform over the next couple of years against the ACC, BIG and Big East, given how stringent the formers' transfer policies are. Was this year's Ivy success a function of pent up excitement over being able to be playing again or is longer term team building an effective way to counteract the talent that gets redistributed by the transfer portal. I've got a feeling the answer will reveal itself fairly quickly next season in that I think expectations for the Ivies will start off skewed in a perhaps unrealistically optimistic direction given the success they achieved this year. Perhaps a two year time frame will present a better evaluative gauge. Time will tell.

[1766]

To me Rutgers’ success with the portal shows what an excellent coach Brecht is. It is not easy to meld a team out of that many guys playing their first year on the squad, but he’s done it. And he’s done it better than a Georgetown or a Notre Dame. Guys want to go to Rutgers and be a part of his program. That says alot.

If you happen to have caught the emotional press conference after the Cornell game with Ryan Gallagher and Colin Kirst, they spoke of this. It gets back to culture. The culture in the locker room (and out) is very strong. It allows bringing in like minded kids that will be accepted and encouraged. Getting the culture to that that point was very challenging when Coach Brecht arrived. The players in the program dating all the way back to Will Mangan, and many others after him, put in a lot of time and effort in making it a positive place where guys can succeed. They are expected to work hard but those guys showed the way. Now we are seeing the results of that. I've been in that locker room. It's a fun place where the guys love Rutgers lacrosse and are willing to put in extra work. In fact it's expected. It's not for everyone but the staff does a great job identifying the right type of players. Not just on the field but off.

I have no insight into Maryland but I can guarantee the culture is incredibly strong. You don't win like that without it.

[Jldlax]

I'll be curious to see how the Ivies and Patriots perform over the next couple of years against the ACC, BIG and Big East, given how stringent the formers' transfer policies are. Was this year's Ivy success a function of pent up excitement over being able to be playing again or is longer term team building an effective way to counteract the talent that gets redistributed by the transfer portal. I've got a feeling the answer will reveal itself fairly quickly next season in that I think expectations for the Ivies will start off skewed in a perhaps unrealistically optimistic direction given the success they achieved this year. Perhaps a two year time frame will present a better evaluative gauge. Time will tell.

With respect to the Ivys, we tend to forget that they were very good before the 2020 and 2021 hiatuses. Yale was a top program in the few years before then, and Penn was as well. And in 2020, Cornell and Princeton were top 5 teams. I think that the lacrosse world kind of forgot about them due to the near two year break. These 4 teams came right out of the break loaded with talent, and with a down ACC and Big East, Harvard ad Brown made it in as AQs.

So yes they have a disadvantage regarding the portal, but compensated well for this with their sheer talent.

[Farfromgeneva]

I'll be curious to see how the Ivies and Patriots perform over the next couple of years against the ACC, BIG and Big East, given how stringent the formers' transfer policies are. Was this year's Ivy success a function of pent up excitement over being able to be playing again or is longer term team building an effective way to counteract the talent that gets redistributed by the transfer portal. I've got a feeling the answer will reveal itself fairly quickly next season in that I think expectations for the Ivies will start off skewed in a perhaps unrealistically optimistic direction given the success they achieved this year. Perhaps a two year time frame will present a better evaluative gauge. Time will tell.

With respect to the Ivys, we tend to forget that they were very good before the 2020 and 2021 hiatuses. Yale was a top program in the few years before then, and Penn was as well. And in 2020, Cornell and Princeton were top 5 teams. I think that the lacrosse world kind of forgot about them due to the near two year break. These 4 teams came right out of the break loaded with talent, and with a down ACC and Big East, Harvard ad Brown made it in as AQs.

So yes they have a disadvantage regarding the portal, but compensated well for this with their sheer talent.

And those endowments allow kids under $150-$175k to attend for free (as it should be)

[The Orfling]

I'll be curious to see how the Ivies and Patriots perform over the next couple of years against the ACC, BIG and Big East, given how stringent the formers' transfer policies are. Was this year's Ivy success a function of pent up excitement over being able to be playing again or is longer term team building an effective way to counteract the talent that gets redistributed by the transfer portal. I've got a feeling the answer will reveal itself fairly quickly next season in that I think expectations for the Ivies will start off skewed in a perhaps unrealistically optimistic direction given the success they achieved this year. Perhaps a two year time frame will present a better evaluative gauge. Time will tell.

I've wondered about this as well, calourie. Certainly next year in those early out-of-conference matchups I can imagine Ivy opponents will be extra dialed in. The other thing to think about is that a number of Ivy teams (even Yale, which was very young overall) had fifth year seniors to not only provide ballast during the return to play but also meaning the Ivies had their share of bigger/stronger older players. I wonder if players who were first-years or second-years in 2020 and 2021 and took a semester off in spring 2022 will be playing as 5th year seniors on their Ivy team, or if that was more an immediate post-pandemic phenomenon.

[RURICK]

if you took the under on 21.5 pages of the transfer thread before the first necrophilia reference, come claim your prize

HopFan16, your best post to date, lol.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'll be curious to see how the Ivies and Patriots perform over the next couple of years against the ACC, BIG and Big East, given how stringent the formers' transfer policies are. Was this year's Ivy success a function of pent up excitement over being able to be playing again or is longer term team building an effective way to counteract the talent that gets redistributed by the transfer portal. I've got a feeling the answer will reveal itself fairly quickly next season in that I think expectations for the Ivies will start off skewed in a perhaps unrealistically optimistic direction given the success they achieved this year. Perhaps a two year time frame will present a better evaluative gauge. Time will tell.

I've wondered about this as well, calourie. Certainly next year in those early out-of-conference matchups I can imagine Ivy opponents will be extra dialed in. The other thing to think about is that a number of Ivy teams (even Yale, which was very young overall) had fifth year seniors to not only provide ballast during the return to play but also meaning the Ivies had their share of bigger/stronger older players. I wonder if players who were first-years or second-years in 2020 and 2021 and took a semester off in spring 2022 will be playing as 5th year seniors on their Ivy team, or if that was more an immediate post-pandemic phenomenon.

It will indeed be interesting.
How many did Yale have extend last year from the class that would have graduated in 2021?
How many sticking from what would have been 2022 grads?
How many considering final year in grad school elsewhere?

I agree, OOC opponents will be dialed into beating Ivies...

[steel_hop]

4 games for the Ivies. Then an entire season, with maybe a scrimmage-like game or two...

But I see your argument...that group of players, tough luck. Don't cost any other classes, just those 4 classes...

But what makes it worse that more players are competing for fewer slots?
Most players don't make it anyway...

Seems to me that a lot of players aren't sticking around for another year (or two), especially given the $ cost of more time in school, so it's not exactly a whole class we're talking about...just a rather small handful in the grand scheme.

But maybe my math is wrong?

From the list posted in the thread, looks to me like 2-4 players per team considering a transfer, most or at least many for extra year; some just one, only a couple schools with more than 4. So, maybe an average of 20% of each class year?

I think you are making too many assumptions. It should have only been seniors to allow them to complete a full season. After that - no for anyone else unless you can demonstrate some type of hard luck case - say a blown out knee or something like that. But a freshman that wasn't going to see the field anyway - no need to give an extra year. But, otherwise you are getting a lot of compression in years. Lots of kids that would have played this year aren't. They are sitting on the sideline waiting.

Think about Kirst at Cornell and I fully admit this is specific to the Ivy league. He only used his 1st year of eligibility this year but was a sophomore in his classes. Unless the Ivy League changes their rules on graduate students playing on sport teams, in the 2024-25 lax season, he's going to be eligible to play for some non-Ivy league team. Why is he given any benefit due to the fact the Ivy league choose to shut down their lax teams (along with all the other sports teams) no one else did that. That's on them.

But the same can be said for a kid like Shellenburger - he was redshirted in 2020. Why does he get an extra year?

Seems to me that a lot of players aren't sticking around for another year (or two), especially given the $ cost of more time in school, so it's not exactly a whole class we're talking about...just a rather small handful in the grand scheme.

But maybe my math is wrong?

From the list posted in the thread, looks to me like 2-4 players per team considering a transfer, most or at least many for extra year; some just one, only a couple schools with more than 4. So, maybe an average of 20% of each class year?

Here's the thing, you math isn't wrong but not accounting for variable of players talents. The 45th kid on a lax team isn't going to stick around for another year. That kid is moving on with his life. But, a top kid that has an extra year is almost assuredly going to play another year. Think of it as the pareto rule 80/20. The kids that are going to stay another year are those that are really good. Thus, swaying the results. Does Maryland win the title this year without some of their 5th and 6th year players. Maybe they still do but I'd like to see it. And as I said this is going to an issue for at least 3 more seasons.