Transfer Portal 2023

[1766]

The right answer is there never should have been cancelled seasons. Now it's backlogged the entire system. Some will take advantage of that others either won't or can't. It seems like a lot of Cornell kids opted out for a year to preserve eligibility. I guess they outsmarted the Ivy League itself. Good for them I say.

I think the best move is to defer a year.

Setting aside sports, deferring a year of college during Covid was probably a wise move anyway. College existence generally was pretty miserable during the height of the Covid restrictions, especially at the most restrictive (and elite) places. Masking, quarantines, "quiet periods", zoom classes, restrictions on social gatherings, surveillance testing, etc. No thanks. I probably would have rather taken a year off and worked and come back when things were more normal.

Exactly. Lacrosse notwithstanding, just being able to have a typical college experience would have been the goal. If my child was entering college at that point, lacrosse or no lacrosse, I'd have strongly recommended they defer the year. Go work the ski slopes or something, or if you want to be ambitious, work an internship of some kind. Either way, I'd not enroll in school only to sit in the bedroom I grew up in staring at a screen of a teacher's assistant who is also sitting in their bedroom.

[smoova]

I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

I'm enjoying this discussion, thoughtful posts all around. Well done.

I think 76 has it right - there wasn't a perfect solution, it was just about balancing the trade-offs. And while I tend to disagree with the NCAA's decision, balancing the trade-offs to benefit the best players and those who are willing to do whatever they can to play in college is entirely consistent with the the play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic. And that's not going to change due to the nature of the sport. The reality in lacrosse is that the elite kids want to maximize their likelihood of success in college, as opposed to peaking later in life as is the case for sports with major $ professional leagues (basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc.). As a result, among the truly serious, the games that are played to maximize that likelihood of success in college are going to continue because those games are effective in achieving the desired outcome. One interesting current note on the topic is the "junior PLL" thing that just got announced. I believe that they're doing that on an age-group basis rather than on an grad year basis. I know US lax tried to do something similar a couple of years ago, but all the NLF-type clubs completely ignored it and it went away.

As a lacrosse fan, it's always funny to see the elite basketball players reclass - because they reclass up rather than down so as to allow them to get to the NBA a year earlier.

Agreed on all points. Glad I'm not the only one.

[MDlaxfan76]

The right answer is there never should have been cancelled seasons. Now it's backlogged the entire system. Some will take advantage of that others either won't or can't. It seems like a lot of Cornell kids opted out for a year to preserve eligibility. I guess they outsmarted the Ivy League itself. Good for them I say.

I think the best move is to defer a year.

Setting aside sports, deferring a year of college during Covid was probably a wise move anyway. College existence generally was pretty miserable during the height of the Covid restrictions, especially at the most restrictive (and elite) places. Masking, quarantines, "quiet periods", zoom classes, restrictions on social gatherings, surveillance testing, etc. No thanks. I probably would have rather taken a year off and worked and come back when things were more normal.

me too, and I know a number of kids who did so, both athletes and non-athletes.

But it wasn't entirely obvious at each stage what would happen next. Pretty darn novel situation.

[nyjay]

The right answer is there never should have been cancelled seasons. Now it's backlogged the entire system. Some will take advantage of that others either won't or can't. It seems like a lot of Cornell kids opted out for a year to preserve eligibility. I guess they outsmarted the Ivy League itself. Good for them I say.

I think the best move is to defer a year.

Setting aside sports, deferring a year of college during Covid was probably a wise move anyway. College existence generally was pretty miserable during the height of the Covid restrictions, especially at the most restrictive (and elite) places. Masking, quarantines, "quiet periods", zoom classes, restrictions on social gatherings, surveillance testing, etc. No thanks. I probably would have rather taken a year off and worked and come back when things were more normal.

me too, and I know a number of kids who did so, both athletes and non-athletes.

But it wasn't entirely obvious at each stage what would happen next. Pretty darn novel situation.

It certainly wasn't obvious at the time - much more so now.

[jersey shore lax]

It is easier in 2022 to know what should have been in 2020, each kid had to do what they thought was in their own best interest at the time be it lacrosse or general college experience.

What i find interesting now is that with teams taking so many transfers in and people on this board saying it hurts the younger kids or recruits yet we are not see any mass exodus of freshman and sophomores from Duke, Rutgers, Maryland etc.

[MDlaxfan76]

I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

I'm enjoying this discussion, thoughtful posts all around. Well done.

I think 76 has it right - there wasn't a perfect solution, it was just about balancing the trade-offs. And while I tend to disagree with the NCAA's decision, balancing the trade-offs to benefit the best players and those who are willing to do whatever they can to play in college is entirely consistent with the the play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic. And that's not going to change due to the nature of the sport. The reality in lacrosse is that the elite kids want to maximize their likelihood of success in college, as opposed to peaking later in life as is the case for sports with major $ professional leagues (basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc.). As a result, among the truly serious, the games that are played to maximize that likelihood of success in college are going to continue because those games are effective in achieving the desired outcome. One interesting current note on the topic is the "junior PLL" thing that just got announced. I believe that they're doing that on an age-group basis rather than on an grad year basis. I know US lax tried to do something similar a couple of years ago, but all the NLF-type clubs completely ignored it and it went away.

As a lacrosse fan, it's always funny to see the elite basketball players reclass - because they reclass up rather than down so as to allow them to get to the NBA a year earlier.

Agreed on all points. Glad I'm not the only one.

Yes, this is an interesting context or lens through which to see the decisions.

I'm not a fan of what is being described as "play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic", but especially "play-down"...I always wanted my son to play "up" a year +, as I'd done as a youngster. More importantly, that's what he wanted to do...in order to get better...always his own theme, his own drive.

We were less worried about his being "noticed" than just improving. (I don't recall ever thinking about being "noticed" way back in our era!). Just improve and get a chance to play to play on bigger and bigger stages. "Notice" would come...he did have a goal of using lax to to secure a more selective school, but that too was more about just stretching to 'improve' and to compete.

That said, I'm not going to be hyper critical of anyone who decides a PG or redshirt year, or a gap year for that matter, is in their interest... shame on any coach recruiting that doesn't recognize age differentials. I am a bit concerned, however, with $ cost problem of differential advantage for those who can afford more tuitions, coaching, etc. A problem throughout our society!

[Typical Lax Dad]

I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

I'm enjoying this discussion, thoughtful posts all around. Well done.

I think 76 has it right - there wasn't a perfect solution, it was just about balancing the trade-offs. And while I tend to disagree with the NCAA's decision, balancing the trade-offs to benefit the best players and those who are willing to do whatever they can to play in college is entirely consistent with the the play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic. And that's not going to change due to the nature of the sport. The reality in lacrosse is that the elite kids want to maximize their likelihood of success in college, as opposed to peaking later in life as is the case for sports with major $ professional leagues (basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc.). As a result, among the truly serious, the games that are played to maximize that likelihood of success in college are going to continue because those games are effective in achieving the desired outcome. One interesting current note on the topic is the "junior PLL" thing that just got announced. I believe that they're doing that on an age-group basis rather than on an grad year basis. I know US lax tried to do something similar a couple of years ago, but all the NLF-type clubs completely ignored it and it went away.

As a lacrosse fan, it's always funny to see the elite basketball players reclass - because they reclass up rather than down so as to allow them to get to the NBA a year earlier.

Agreed on all points. Glad I'm not the only one.

Yes, this is an interesting context or lens through which to see the decisions.

I'm not a fan of what is being described as "play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic", but especially "play-down"...I always wanted my son to play "up" a year +, as I'd done as a youngster. More importantly, that's what he wanted to do...in order to get better...always his own theme, his own drive.

We were less worried about his being "noticed" than just improving. (I don't recall ever thinking about being "noticed" way back in our era!). Just improve and get a chance to play to play on bigger and bigger stages. "Notice" would come...he did have a goal of using lax to to secure a more selective school, but that too was more about just stretching to 'improve' and to compete.

That said, I'm not going to be hyper critical of anyone who decides a PG or redshirt year, or a gap year for that matter, is in their interest... shame on any coach recruiting that doesn't recognize age differentials. I am a bit concerned, however, with $ cost problem of differential advantage for those who can afford more tuitions, coaching, etc. A problem throughout our society!

In soccer, the goal is to have your son play up. The good players play up. I saw Puliscic as a u12 playing u14 and another kid, Gideon Zalalem do the same. No soccer or hockey coach in his right mind is recruiting a kid based in playing down 1 year and definitely not 2. I am biased. My son always played up in sports. Often two years up.

[smoova]

I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

I'm enjoying this discussion, thoughtful posts all around. Well done.

I think 76 has it right - there wasn't a perfect solution, it was just about balancing the trade-offs. And while I tend to disagree with the NCAA's decision, balancing the trade-offs to benefit the best players and those who are willing to do whatever they can to play in college is entirely consistent with the the play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic. And that's not going to change due to the nature of the sport. The reality in lacrosse is that the elite kids want to maximize their likelihood of success in college, as opposed to peaking later in life as is the case for sports with major $ professional leagues (basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc.). As a result, among the truly serious, the games that are played to maximize that likelihood of success in college are going to continue because those games are effective in achieving the desired outcome. One interesting current note on the topic is the "junior PLL" thing that just got announced. I believe that they're doing that on an age-group basis rather than on an grad year basis. I know US lax tried to do something similar a couple of years ago, but all the NLF-type clubs completely ignored it and it went away.

As a lacrosse fan, it's always funny to see the elite basketball players reclass - because they reclass up rather than down so as to allow them to get to the NBA a year earlier.

Agreed on all points. Glad I'm not the only one.

Yes, this is an interesting context or lens through which to see the decisions.

I'm not a fan of what is being described as "play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic", but especially "play-down"...I always wanted my son to play "up" a year +, as I'd done as a youngster. More importantly, that's what he wanted to do...in order to get better...always his own theme, his own drive.

We were less worried about his being "noticed" than just improving. (I don't recall ever thinking about being "noticed" way back in our era!). Just improve and get a chance to play to play on bigger and bigger stages. "Notice" would come...he did have a goal of using lax to to secure a more selective school, but that too was more about just stretching to 'improve' and to compete.

That said, I'm not going to be hyper critical of anyone who decides a PG or redshirt year, or a gap year for that matter, is in their interest... shame on any coach recruiting that doesn't recognize age differentials. I am a bit concerned, however, with $ cost problem of differential advantage for those who can afford more tuitions, coaching, etc. A problem throughout our society!

Yes, lacrosse will never really grow until control of the sport is wrested from wealthy parents desperately striving to purchase any possible advantage for their mediocre spawn.

[Laxmaninamillion]

Another result of the COVID situation is that a ton of 2021s and 2022’s were told by their schools that they had no room for them and asked them to reclass and do a PG year. This way the school didn’t spend scholarship $$$ by redshirting them and they still got good lax play. My kid just finished his PG year at a NE prep school. He had five PGs on his team that were told to reclass by their colleges for this reason.

[nyjay]

In soccer, the goal is to have your son play up. The good players play up. I saw Puliscic as a u12 playing u14 and another kid, Gideon Zalalem do the same. No soccer or hockey coach in his right mind is recruiting a kid based in playing down 1 year and definitely not 2. I am biased. My son always played up in sports. Often two years up.

Totally agreed, but there's no option to play down in soccer - everything is birth year based not grad year based. If the option were there, people might take it. Can't say I know enough about college soccer and recruiting to comment much further though. Do prep schools do PGs for soccer? I assume they do, but I've never heard of it.

[Farfromgeneva]

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!

...all the kids didn't get to play, including down into HS for that matter.

You may have answered your own question: the better decision would have been to do nothing. Granting additional eligibility to current college players further punished HS kids, who also missed a season and had to struggle through an 18-month dead period.

Exactly. Just look at the Patriot league and Ivy leagues. They don’t allow red shirting unless injured....

Now they, in essence, lose a year of college.

Those are some serious problems of the one percenters. The schools, fans and parents can blame their own conferences for that disadvantage. The redshirting rule is not new for those leagues; if Johnny's playing time over a 5 year time frame was their priority, then they chose the wrong school. There is nothing wrong with transferring for more playing time or for any other reason.

Nobody, in essence, lost a year of college. The kid can stay in school as long as he wants.

I thought the whole point of lacrosse was to get into a superior (reputation) college than one would otherwise?

Love the game but when talking about college in general…

[Farfromgeneva]

I think fair number of Ivy Leaguers, at least those on Cornell, withdrew for periods in order to maintain some eligibility. Most of the current juniors (high school class of 2019) plan on playing another two seasons for the Big Red.

That’s what I would do. Work, drink, girls (exercise), work, drink, girls for three extra months in ones prime.

[Farfromgeneva]

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!

...all the kids didn't get to play, including down into HS for that matter.

You may have answered your own question: the better decision would have been to do nothing. Granting additional eligibility to current college players further punished HS kids, who also missed a season and had to struggle through an 18-month dead period.

I dunno...I see tradeoffs no matter which way one looks at it.

Basically, we simply have many more players than usual having 'red shirt' eligibility, which they may or may not use, depending upon other factors in their life and the 'value' they perceive in using that eligibility.

Not sure there was really any more 'fair' way to do it, consistent with prior rationale of policies of eligibility status, and given the extremely unusual circumstances.

But sure, there's a cost, certainly on the margin...a couple fewer kids per school in the next class up to be given slots etc, thus needing to look at a next option, and so on...so, what are we talking about, 100-150 kids per class for a couple of years needing to go to a different school (if dependent on an athletic slot)?

The competitive environment for slots is even tougher? Most HS players never get such a slot at a top D1, D2 or D3 as it is. I dunno, you wanted Yale as the 7-9 slot but you have to go to Dartmouth? or you wanted Dartmouth but have to go to Middlebury? or you wanted Syracuse and you have to go to Albany (or get into Syracuse on your academics?)? or...

I'm open to being persuaded though, just not there yet.

You seem to want a quantification of the impact of the NCAA's ill-considered actions. I'm not the guy who has that analysis. What I do know is that the NCAA twice (extra eligibility and extended dead period) chose to restrict opportunity for HS kids in order to aid current college players. I think those actions were both short sighted and "unfair" since all players (HS and college) were largely deprived of the 2020 season (although many college teams actually got a full preseason and several games). I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

NCAA doesn’t have any reason to care about kids who aren’t yet, and may never be, college student athletes. Anything could happen before they are student athletes under the purview of their org. Makes no sense to project on a group that isn’t there yet.

[MDlaxfan76]

I recognize that the NCAA made these decisions across all sports, but I do appreciate that the effect was consistent with the current trend in lacrosse of disadvantaging younger players in order to advantage older players (see e.g. the current play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic).

I'm enjoying this discussion, thoughtful posts all around. Well done.

I think 76 has it right - there wasn't a perfect solution, it was just about balancing the trade-offs. And while I tend to disagree with the NCAA's decision, balancing the trade-offs to benefit the best players and those who are willing to do whatever they can to play in college is entirely consistent with the the play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic. And that's not going to change due to the nature of the sport. The reality in lacrosse is that the elite kids want to maximize their likelihood of success in college, as opposed to peaking later in life as is the case for sports with major $ professional leagues (basketball, football, hockey, baseball, etc.). As a result, among the truly serious, the games that are played to maximize that likelihood of success in college are going to continue because those games are effective in achieving the desired outcome. One interesting current note on the topic is the "junior PLL" thing that just got announced. I believe that they're doing that on an age-group basis rather than on an grad year basis. I know US lax tried to do something similar a couple of years ago, but all the NLF-type clubs completely ignored it and it went away.

As a lacrosse fan, it's always funny to see the elite basketball players reclass - because they reclass up rather than down so as to allow them to get to the NBA a year earlier.

Agreed on all points. Glad I'm not the only one.

Yes, this is an interesting context or lens through which to see the decisions.

I'm not a fan of what is being described as "play-down/hold-back/PG epidemic", but especially "play-down"...I always wanted my son to play "up" a year +, as I'd done as a youngster. More importantly, that's what he wanted to do...in order to get better...always his own theme, his own drive.

We were less worried about his being "noticed" than just improving. (I don't recall ever thinking about being "noticed" way back in our era!). Just improve and get a chance to play to play on bigger and bigger stages. "Notice" would come...he did have a goal of using lax to to secure a more selective school, but that too was more about just stretching to 'improve' and to compete.

That said, I'm not going to be hyper critical of anyone who decides a PG or redshirt year, or a gap year for that matter, is in their interest... shame on any coach recruiting that doesn't recognize age differentials. I am a bit concerned, however, with $ cost problem of differential advantage for those who can afford more tuitions, coaching, etc. A problem throughout our society!

Yes, lacrosse will never really grow until control of the sport is wrested from wealthy parents desperately striving to purchase any possible advantage for their mediocre spawn.

well...it has always been thus, and has grown quite a bit.
That's the perspective of my own 6 decades of observing the sport, plus awareness of my dad's era.
A lot of growth. (A bit stymied in D1 level now, though).
https://athelogroup.com/lacrosse/a-sport-on-the-rise/

Is the affluence advantage really worse than it was two or four decades ago?...maybe it is...

But yes, a slowdown in the growth curve may well be from sense of costs...and the slowdown in D1 adds...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490 ... pation-us/

That said, I do think that there's a general challenge in our society in differential advantage.

Assuming, of course, that "growth" is what's important...personally I'd just like to see more college opportunities for more kids, and the continued attraction to strong athletes. But not growth for growth's sake...I'm sure the equipment folks and others seeking to make $ would see that differently.

[Farfromgeneva]

The right answer is there never should have been cancelled seasons. Now it's backlogged the entire system. Some will take advantage of that others either won't or can't. It seems like a lot of Cornell kids opted out for a year to preserve eligibility. I guess they outsmarted the Ivy League itself. Good for them I say.

I think the best move is to defer a year.

You think they should have just toughed it out through May, 2020? The world is shut down, but Duke plays UVA at noon on ESPN ham radio,

Also, what schools or coaches can take advantage of the system but won't?

The one that really wants to work at a public high school as a hybrid guidance counselor/lacrosse coach?

[Typical Lax Dad]

In soccer, the goal is to have your son play up. The good players play up. I saw Puliscic as a u12 playing u14 and another kid, Gideon Zalalem do the same. No soccer or hockey coach in his right mind is recruiting a kid based in playing down 1 year and definitely not 2. I am biased. My son always played up in sports. Often two years up.

Totally agreed, but there's no option to play down in soccer - everything is birth year based not grad year based. If the option were there, people might take it. Can't say I know enough about college soccer and recruiting to comment much further though. Do prep schools do PGs for soccer? I assume they do, but I've never heard of it.

That’s right. You can’t hide in soccer. The PGs for soccer are often foreign students…. https://www.righttodream.com/
Soccer coaches recruits kids based on club play which is on age or up. My son was recruited for ACC soccer and had club and regional team teammates play ACC/Big Ten and MLS. Nobody is recruiting a player based on how they look playing down. All one needs to do is stand on a soccer field when a U16 team is practicing right next to a U15 team to see the difference. I told two college coaches that I didn’t like this college player everyone drooled over because he could have been a junior in college instead of a highs school senior. The more he stayed back, the better he looked. A good solid player but not sure he will play to his ranking. A buddy that I argued this point with for 2 years now says I may be right.

[smoova]

Yes, lacrosse will never really grow until control of the sport is wrested from wealthy parents desperately striving to purchase any possible advantage for their mediocre spawn.

well...it has always been thus, and has grown quite a bit.
That's the perspective of my own 6 decades of observing the sport, plus awareness of my dad's era.
A lot of growth. (A bit stymied in D1 level now, though).
https://athelogroup.com/lacrosse/a-sport-on-the-rise/

Is the affluence advantage really worse than it was two or four decades ago?...maybe it is...

But yes, a slowdown in the growth curve may well be from sense of costs...and the slowdown in D1 adds...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490 ... pation-us/

That said, I do think that there's a general challenge in our society in differential advantage.

Assuming, of course, that "growth" is what's important...personally I'd just like to see more college opportunities for more kids, and the continued attraction to strong athletes. But not growth for growth's sake...I'm sure the equipment folks and others seeking to make $ would see that differently.

One of my favorite things about your responses (in addition to the clear writing and careful thought given) is how you often begin by disagreeing but end up agreeing.

[MDlaxfan76]

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!

...all the kids didn't get to play, including down into HS for that matter.

You may have answered your own question: the better decision would have been to do nothing. Granting additional eligibility to current college players further punished HS kids, who also missed a season and had to struggle through an 18-month dead period.

Exactly. Just look at the Patriot league and Ivy leagues. They don’t allow red shirting unless injured....

Now they, in essence, lose a year of college.

Those are some serious problems of the one percenters. The schools, fans and parents can blame their own conferences for that disadvantage. The redshirting rule is not new for those leagues; if Johnny's playing time over a 5 year time frame was their priority, then they chose the wrong school. There is nothing wrong with transferring for more playing time or for any other reason.

Nobody, in essence, lost a year of college. The kid can stay in school as long as he wants.

I thought the whole point of lacrosse was to get into a superior (reputation) college than one would otherwise?

Love the game but when talking about college in general…

Apparently not for everyone...
Which is fine, different strokes...

Looking at just the Ivies, where that's presumably at least one of the key factors of being there, almost all complete their requirements and graduate, they don't transfer out to get PT...that would most likely only happen if something had gone wrong in the classroom or off the field issues or both. (there could be an exception out there, but that's the odds on). But getting a grad year in might well be an attractive way to use any extra eligibility before heading to the workforce...my son would have considered that with his medical redshirt eligibility if concussions hadn't put that to bed. Others from his team also thought about it, but they all ended up just moving on to work...Covid's been a new sort of wrinkle...

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, lacrosse will never really grow until control of the sport is wrested from wealthy parents desperately striving to purchase any possible advantage for their mediocre spawn.

well...it has always been thus, and has grown quite a bit.
That's the perspective of my own 6 decades of observing the sport, plus awareness of my dad's era.
A lot of growth. (A bit stymied in D1 level now, though).
https://athelogroup.com/lacrosse/a-sport-on-the-rise/

Is the affluence advantage really worse than it was two or four decades ago?...maybe it is...

But yes, a slowdown in the growth curve may well be from sense of costs...and the slowdown in D1 adds...
https://www.statista.com/statistics/490 ... pation-us/

That said, I do think that there's a general challenge in our society in differential advantage.

Assuming, of course, that "growth" is what's important...personally I'd just like to see more college opportunities for more kids, and the continued attraction to strong athletes. But not growth for growth's sake...I'm sure the equipment folks and others seeking to make $ would see that differently.

One of my favorite things about your responses (in addition to the clear writing and careful thought given) is how you often begin by disagreeing but end up agreeing.

ahhh, I like to find whatever common ground may be possible.
And I'm genuinely interested in what other's thoughtful contributions may be.

This is an interesting topic...tangential to transfers perhaps, but certainly interesting to think about.

[D3LAXLOVER]

Is it true that UVA does not let athletic teams use Darden and other schools to attract grad students? If so puts them at a huge disadvantage