Miscellaneous Topics 2023

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Maddie Montgomery from William Smith just committed to play at Denver starting next fall. I think this will be her fifth year, but 4th playing year, at HWS (one injury year, on). Then either 1 or 2 at Denver? It goes on and on and on.

Forgive me if you've already explained but what is it about this you are displeased/disappointed with?

Responding to the comments about the wave of d3 to d1 and adding this example. It seemed that people in this forum thought that the COVID transfers were done and simply adding information that they are not.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Pardon my assumption. I guessed from the "on and on and on" that you weren't thrilled about it.

[Laxfan212]

Maddie Montgomery from William Smith just committed to play at Denver starting next fall. I think this will be her fifth year, but 4th playing year, at HWS (one injury year, on). Then either 1 or 2 at Denver? It goes on and on and on.

Forgive me if you've already explained but what is it about this you are displeased/disappointed with?

Responding to the comments about the wave of d3 to d1 and adding this example. It seemed that people in this forum thought that the COVID transfers were done and simply adding information that they are not.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. Pardon my assumption. I guessed from the "on and on and on" that you weren't thrilled about it.

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

[Laxfan212]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

[GratefulRed]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

So well said, and your restraint is commendable. 2023 HS grads competing with/against 2017 grads--when put this way sounds nuts.

[cltlax]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

So well said, and your restraint is commendable. 2023 HS grads competing with/against 2017 grads--when put this way sounds nuts.

Absolutely. HS kids also lost season(s) due to Covid. They aren't getting extra eligibility.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

So many lost from Covid. I think of NU's Liza Elder, who was having a good productive healthy final season when Covid hit. She who bravely endured so many surgeries for one more chance to play lost the rest of 2020 and the end of her playing career with it. The high school students. The displaced college players. Interesting the NCAA decided the way they did. They could just as easily, I'm supposing, have decided to not grant a concession extra year of eligibility citing the classes who were slated to arrive and how it wouldn't be fair to them, etc.

Thanks, Laxfan212. I appreciated the explanation. I also thought "well said" after reading what you wrote--especially this:

They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

Widens my perspective on the matter. I'm just a fan. Never played, coached or had kids who did.

[Relax77]

Should’ve been granted to seniors and that’s it.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Should’ve been granted to seniors and that’s it.

Agreed. Makes the most sense, and there's an end to it.

[forthelaxofit]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

So well said, and your restraint is commendable. 2023 HS grads competing with/against 2017 grads--when put this way sounds nuts.

I couldn’t agree more - it is nuts. My daughter has graduated so I don’t have a horse in this race, but the then Covid HS girls have been working and dreaming of playing college lacrosse, get recruited and excited for the opportunity. They know it is not a guarantee they will play, but think they are on level playing field. Work hard again, thinking their opportunity may come. I know a family whose daughter was crushed when the team went out and got 3 covid transfers this summer understanding the likely impact that meant to her opportunity. So yes the super teams benefit in their hunt for a national championship by stocking the shelves with Covid transfers, but the impact on the rest of the roster is real.

[Relax77]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

So well said, and your restraint is commendable. 2023 HS grads competing with/against 2017 grads--when put this way sounds nuts.

I couldn’t agree more - it is nuts. My daughter has graduated so I don’t have a horse in this race, but the then Covid HS girls have been working and dreaming of playing college lacrosse, get recruited and excited for the opportunity. They know it is not a guarantee they will play, but think they are on level playing field. Work hard again, thinking their opportunity may come. I know a family whose daughter was crushed when the team went out and got 3 covid transfers this summer understanding the likely impact that meant to her opportunity. So yes the super teams benefit in their hunt for a national championship by stocking the shelves with Covid transfers, but the impact on the rest of the roster is real.

I will say this. There is many more opportunities now to play D1 women’s lacrosse than Five years ago. More teams and rosters are bigger. Touchy subject but teams outside the top 50 are stacking the teams with kids that probably wouldn’t have played high level d2 years ago. So I don’t think it is stopping kids from playing. There’s tons of spots. I think the problem is for the higher ranked teams. Paying their dues and when thinking they have a chance, a couple of transfers come in dropping them down. Which as I said, if the gave only the seniors an extra year, none of these problems would have existed. As a parent with one in this year, Not sure how I feel about my daughter who will be 18 playing against 24 year olds. That concerns me a bit.

[forthelaxofit]

There are certainly reasons to question how the NCAA’s decision in granting the extra years has impacted lacrosse over this period of time. Ultimately it is probably a benefit to certain teams that can pull in transfers as the average age of teams has escalated - there are 2017 HS grads playing college lax this season - obviously a benefit to the team’s ability to win. But certainly not everyone and all aspects in the landscape of women’s lacrosse have benefitted from this.

I'm intrigued to learn more about this. How would you say this period has been a negative for women's lacrosse? Not setting you up for a GOTCHA. Genuinely interested in hearing about the side effects.

I’m not trying to be snarky but genuinely surprised that this is a question, as I thought was been common knowledge. As kids have been piling up with extra eligibility due to COVID years, this has meant either larger rosters (with less playing time for younger girls) or less recruitment and opportunities for student athletes in the classes below those Covid years. Many, many kids have been affected because rosters are full of kids with extra eligibility. There are multiple years of girls who came behind the COVID years who have been impacted. It doesn’t mean the teams are negatively impacted - as I said many are stronger due to the ability to keep older athletes. But there’s a cohort of girls who have had opportunities significantly reduced. They’ll survive - playing lacrosse isn’t a constitutional right. It’s just a bummer.

So well said, and your restraint is commendable. 2023 HS grads competing with/against 2017 grads--when put this way sounds nuts.

I couldn’t agree more - it is nuts. My daughter has graduated so I don’t have a horse in this race, but the then Covid HS girls have been working and dreaming of playing college lacrosse, get recruited and excited for the opportunity. They know it is not a guarantee they will play, but think they are on level playing field. Work hard again, thinking their opportunity may come. I know a family whose daughter was crushed when the team went out and got 3 covid transfers this summer understanding the likely impact that meant to her opportunity. So yes the super teams benefit in their hunt for a national championship by stocking the shelves with Covid transfers, but the impact on the rest of the roster is real.

I will say this. There is many more opportunities now to play D1 women’s lacrosse than Five years ago. More teams and rosters are bigger. Touchy subject but teams outside the top 50 are stacking the teams with kids that probably wouldn’t have played high level d2 years ago. So I don’t think it is stopping kids from playing. There’s tons of spots. I think the problem is for the higher ranked teams. Paying their dues and when thinking they have a chance, a couple of transfers come in dropping them down. Which as I said, if the gave only the seniors an extra year, none of these problems would have existed. As a parent with one in this year, Not sure how I feel about my daughter who will be 18 playing against 24 year olds. That concerns me a bit.

Another topic chain just listed the top 50 players. Potential arguments or disagreements aside on the ranking, of the top 15 players listed, 10 are at least 5th year players. Also at this point I think Denver is up to 6 of their 12 projected starters being 5-7 year players. There was an article this summer in USA Lacrosse Magazine that this group of Denver players have a group chat calling themselves the "grad grandmas". Not sure what school your daughter is at, but if they play a top 10 team there will be women 5 and maybe 6 years older than her out there.

[lax410]

It’s definitely an issue. But so is the crazy reclassing we see in men’s lax and other sports which has 18 year olds playing with 24 and 25 year olds. I hope if, god forbid, any interruptions like Covid happen again, the NCAA reflects on how this impacted the girls downstream and makes a different choice.

[Relax77]

It’s definitely an issue. But so is the crazy reclassing we see in men’s lax and other sports which has 18 year olds playing with 24 and 25 year olds. I hope if, god forbid, any interruptions like Covid happen again, the NCAA reflects on how this impacted the girls downstream and makes a different choice.

Reclasses happen in the women’s as well. Obviously not as prevalent but it does happen. a top 10 player this year is a reclass. Also on another jersey team some Junior just reclassed because she didn’t like her options. What the heck is wrong with these parents.

[WLaxdad]

It’s definitely an issue. But so is the crazy reclassing we see in men’s lax and other sports which has 18 year olds playing with 24 and 25 year olds. I hope if, god forbid, any interruptions like Covid happen again, the NCAA reflects on how this impacted the girls downstream and makes a different choice.

Reclasses happen in the women’s as well. Obviously not as prevalent but it does happen. a top 10 player this year is a reclass. Also on another jersey team some Junior just reclassed because she didn’t like her options. What the heck is wrong with these parents.

Is "reclassing" where the student is intentionally held back a year just to get better at sports? I've heard of this but not the term.

[forthelaxofit]

It’s definitely an issue. But so is the crazy reclassing we see in men’s lax and other sports which has 18 year olds playing with 24 and 25 year olds. I hope if, god forbid, any interruptions like Covid happen again, the NCAA reflects on how this impacted the girls downstream and makes a different choice.

Reclasses happen in the women’s as well. Obviously not as prevalent but it does happen. a top 10 player this year is a reclass. Also on another jersey team some Junior just reclassed because she didn’t like her options. What the heck is wrong with these parents.

That is a good point about reclassing. When we talk about 5th, 6th or 7th year players in college, if they reclassed before getting there, they are even older age wise. Definitely driven by parents, what kid 16 and under wakes up and says "boy let me repeat the same school year". I know a lot of families that have done this. The "smart" parents do it in middle school, before entering high school. When done in high school, if in a public school in many states you have to transfer to a Prep school because public high school rules don't give red shirts and redos. Clock starts freshman year, 4 years and done. Those states are very aware of the age issues by reclass repeats. Club soccer is smarter than club lacrosse in this area. Maybe 6-7 years ago club soccer went to Birth year rules and not graduating year. Meaning you played with your birth year no matter what grade you are in. So when you reclass in soccer, you still have to play in club tournaments with you birth year.

[Relax77]

It’s definitely an issue. But so is the crazy reclassing we see in men’s lax and other sports which has 18 year olds playing with 24 and 25 year olds. I hope if, god forbid, any interruptions like Covid happen again, the NCAA reflects on how this impacted the girls downstream and makes a different choice.

Reclasses happen in the women’s as well. Obviously not as prevalent but it does happen. a top 10 player this year is a reclass. Also on another jersey team some Junior just reclassed because she didn’t like her options. What the heck is wrong with these parents.

That is a good point about reclassing. When we talk about 5th, 6th or 7th year players in college, if they reclassed before getting there, they are even older age wise. Definitely driven by parents, what kid 16 and under wakes up and says "boy let me repeat the same school year". I know a lot of families that have done this. The "smart" parents do it in middle school, before entering high school. When done in high school, if in a public school in many states you have to transfer to a Prep school because public high school rules don't give red shirts and redos. Clock starts freshman year, 4 years and done. Those states are very aware of the age issues by reclass repeats. Club soccer is smarter than club lacrosse in this area. Maybe 6-7 years ago club soccer went to Birth year rules and not graduating year. Meaning you played with your birth year no matter what grade you are in. So when you reclass in soccer, you still have to play in club tournaments with you birth year.

I get the holding kids back from entering kindergarten when they test them and say they aren’t ready. And there’s a ton of them that do that. But to hold back kids solely for sports purposes especially after they are established later in years is insane. That’s why I like how ice hockey does it. Birth year no matter what. All sports should be like that. Would stop the ridiculous parents from keeping their kids back.

[Relax77]

And I say that with having a daughter who was 4 when she went to kindergarten. She was deemed ready to go and did fine.

[jff97]

Not that many of the main posters on here want good things for Maryland, but their renovated Field Hockey and Lacrosse Complex building opened yesterday. A well deserved upgrade.
https://umterps.com/news/2023/12/8/firs ... s-lacrosse

[UO22]

Not that many of the main posters on here want good things for Maryland, but their renovated Field Hockey and Lacrosse Complex building opened yesterday. A well deserved upgrade.
https://umterps.com/news/2023/12/8/firs ... s-lacrosse

Great see to the investment into the program. Still crazy that they have to play on that surface. Not a good look.