Pro N Cons Another Season Senior Eligibilty

[pcowlax]

If many seniors elect to move on with their career as expected. Will most teams be void of seniors on the roster with double the Freshman class next year. Will there be a new name for sophomores/Juniors/Seniors who are eligible for an extra year ? Next year it wont be Senior Captain Johns last year as he will have another year to play if he chooses.

Next year will be strange and the following four years with a double Freshman/Soph 4 years of eligibility class coming along with some players graduating as planned and deciding to join workforce instead of using their extra year and some deciding to stay.

I suspect each year fans will be on pins and needles waiting on a starter with another year of eligibility to stay or graduate and move on.

? This year's juniors will be seniors next year and will be a normal size class, plus any of this year's seniors who come back. They may get an extra year of lax eligibility but they are not actually repeating a grade. They will graduate in 4 years as ever (mostly at least) and then need to decide if they want to pursue graduate school while they play a 5th year of lax.

[Chuckman]

If many seniors elect to move on with their career as expected. Will most teams be void of seniors on the roster with double the Freshman class next year. Will there be a new name for sophomores/Juniors/Seniors who are eligible for an extra year ? Next year it wont be Senior Captain Johns last year as he will have another year to play if he chooses.

Next year will be strange and the following four years with a double Freshman/Soph 4 years of eligibility class coming along with some players graduating as planned and deciding to join workforce instead of using their extra year and some deciding to stay.

I suspect each year fans will be on pins and needles waiting on a starter with another year of eligibility to stay or graduate and move on.

? This year's juniors will be seniors next year and will be a normal size class, plus any of this year's seniors who come back. They may get an extra year of lax eligibility but they are not actually repeating a grade. They will graduate in 4 years as ever (mostly at least) and then need to decide if they want to pursue graduate school while they play a 5th year of lax.

For the next fours year we will have the same question. Will the starting seniors of our favorite team decide to stay or leave, Each year will have a little uncertainty like the discussion on current seniors. Frankly the coaches will be looking at roster and may decide for the senior based on who is coming up.

Will be very interesting for next four years with these extra year of eligibility players who graduate as expected. Stay or go

Next years players
Freshman 4 years of eligibility.
Soph 3 years to graduate and Does he stay his 4th year of eligibility. Maybe call them Blueshirt Soph/Junior/Senior instead of Red ?
Junior 2 years to graduate and Does he stay his 3rd year of eligibility.
Senior 1 year to graduate and Dose he stay his 2rd year of eligibility.
Graduate Students are they staying their extra 1 year of eligibility.

[palaxoff]

Next years players
Freshman 4 years of eligibility.
Soph 3 years to graduate and Does he stay his 4th year of eligibility. Maybe call them Blueshirt Soph/Junior/Senior instead of Red ?
Junior 2 years to graduate and Does he stay his 3rd year of eligibility.
Senior 1 year to graduate and Dose he stay his 2rd year of eligibility.
Graduate Students are they staying their extra 1 year of eligibility.

Has anyone considered for most athletes this is a $30,000 to $40,000 ticket to play another year?

[laxpert]

NCAA votes today


https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 936155001/

[Dip&Dunk]

NCAA votes today


https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/c ... 936155001/

I have the feeling talent-wise the rich will get richer and the poor, poorer. And since two of the schools I follow do not have post graduate student capabilities, I either have no dog in this fight or my dogs are going to be disadvantaged. Overall, a first world problem if there ever was one though.

[cc2519]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

[njfanlax]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

High school players are in worse shape than College players.

College players already on the team are much less likely to get cut from the team compared to a HS student who may not receive a college offer at all. This is due to the fact that the supply of available empty roster spots for 2022 and 2023 classes may be significantly reduced by the addition of 5th year players. Once a high school player joins a college team, he faces the same disadvantages as the other college players.

I think it is much more convenient and less risky for a coach to take a flyer on a 5th year player than a HS school recruit.
5th year player advantages.
1. Can contribute right away after he/she is recruited for the additional year. HS recruit has to wait 2 years May take 3-4 years to really contribute to the team. By that time, the coach may no longer be coaching the team.
2. Has already been thoroughly tested against college competition, so there is very little uncertainty. HS recruit hasn't been tested at all- everything is based on a HS evaluation and an imprecise forecast for the future.
3. Only plays for 1 year. If it doesn't work out, there is no long term impact. HS recruit is signed for the duration of his college career, unless he is cut from the team or drops out.

But I agree, the college coach needs to stock his roster with HS recruits to fill the gaps when the "coronavirus classes" finally move on. But he probably has the ability to skip 1 HS class (e.g. 2022) entirely and focus exclusively on 5th year exceptions if he was successful in recruiting them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

[cc2519]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

High school players are in worse shape than College players.

College players already on the team are much less likely to get cut from the team compared to a HS student who may not receive a college offer at all. This is due to the fact that the supply of available empty roster spots for 2022 and 2023 classes may be significantly reduced by the addition of 5th year players. Once a high school player joins a college team, he faces the same disadvantages as the other college players.

I think it is much more convenient and less risky for a coach to take a flyer on a 5th year player than a HS school recruit.
5th year player advantages.
1. Can contribute right away after he/she is recruited for the additional year. HS recruit has to wait 2 years May take 3-4 years to really contribute to the team. By that time, the coach may no longer be coaching the team.
2. Has already been thoroughly tested against college competition, so there is very little uncertainty. HS recruit hasn't been tested at all- everything is based on a HS evaluation and an imprecise forecast for the future.
3. Only plays for 1 year. If it doesn't work out, there is no long term impact. HS recruit is signed for the duration of his college career, unless he is cut from the team or drops out.

But I agree, the college coach needs to stock his roster with HS recruits to fill the gaps when the "coronavirus classes" finally move on. But he probably has the ability to skip 1 HS class (e.g. 2022) entirely and focus exclusively on 5th year exceptions if he was successful in recruiting them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Partially right...maybe! My analysis (such as it is) already assumed three, 5th year seniors coming back. (BTW take a look at most rosters, most schools only have 8-10 seniors on the team, anyway. Hard to imagine more than 3 or maybe four being asked back and then making the life decision to pay for an extra year of school just to play an extra year of lax.) The question then is, who gets squeezed out to make room for those three? I think it might be some combination of rising soph, junior and seniors, rather than incoming recruits...for the reasons I noted above. So the college coach isn't choosing between incoming recruits and 5th year seniors. He's choosing between incoming recruits and borderline / scout team sophs, juniors and seniors. Obviously, certain schools' ability to attract graduate transfers could muddy this situation.

[njfanlax]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

High school players are in worse shape than College players.

College players already on the team are much less likely to get cut from the team compared to a HS student who may not receive a college offer at all. This is due to the fact that the supply of available empty roster spots for 2022 and 2023 classes may be significantly reduced by the addition of 5th year players. Once a high school player joins a college team, he faces the same disadvantages as the other college players.

I think it is much more convenient and less risky for a coach to take a flyer on a 5th year player than a HS school recruit.
5th year player advantages.
1. Can contribute right away after he/she is recruited for the additional year. HS recruit has to wait 2 years May take 3-4 years to really contribute to the team. By that time, the coach may no longer be coaching the team.
2. Has already been thoroughly tested against college competition, so there is very little uncertainty. HS recruit hasn't been tested at all- everything is based on a HS evaluation and an imprecise forecast for the future.
3. Only plays for 1 year. If it doesn't work out, there is no long term impact. HS recruit is signed for the duration of his college career, unless he is cut from the team or drops out.

But I agree, the college coach needs to stock his roster with HS recruits to fill the gaps when the "coronavirus classes" finally move on. But he probably has the ability to skip 1 HS class (e.g. 2022) entirely and focus exclusively on 5th year exceptions if he was successful in recruiting them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Partially right...maybe! My analysis (such as it is) already assumed three, 5th year seniors coming back. (BTW take a look at most rosters, most schools only have 8-10 seniors on the team, anyway. Hard to imagine more than 3 or maybe four being asked back and then making the life decision to pay for an extra year of school just to play an extra year of lax.) The question then is, who gets squeezed out to make room for those three? I think it might be some combination of rising soph, junior and seniors, rather than incoming recruits...for the reasons I noted above. So the college coach isn't choosing between incoming recruits and 5th year seniors. He's choosing between incoming recruits and borderline / scout team sophs, juniors and seniors. Obviously, certain schools' ability to attract graduate transfers could muddy this situation.

From Inside Lacrosse
"While that is an important next step, it's just one of many, as conferences like the Ivy League and Patriot League have their own sets of rules about fifth-year players and will have to make their own decisions.
As a result, a number of notable Division I players have entered the transfer portal in recent weeks as they await decisions. In many cases, it's an exploratory act by the student-athletes, as many hope to remain at their current school for the 2020-21 year. Of course, factors such as graduate school programs, tuition and postgrad job opportunities will play a role in decision. For now, however, here's a look at many of the notable names that have entered the portal as we await more specifics regarding eligibility.
—Six of Colgate's seniors, including several starters, were among the notable names to enter the portal beginning on March 14, when the Raiders' offensive standouts Griffin Brown and Nicky Petkevich entered their names as grad students. Colgate does not offer graduate school other than a small Master of Arts in Teaching program, so as of now, opening up contact with other programs is the logical move to test the waters. When reached for comment, head coach Matt Karweck expressed that he encouraged his Colgate seniors that hoped to play another year of lacrosse to enter their names in the portal. Several are expected to get a significant amount of interest, and he says all six have been contacted."

It seems like a lot of seniors (Colgate already has 6) are entering the transfer portal, so there is definite interest by quite a few players to explore their 5th year of eligibility. Coaches can also recruit 5th year players from other colleges. Since the Ivy League and Patriot League do not currently allow graduate students to compete, they could be a hotbed of talent for the other D1 lacrosse conferences to recruit from for the next 4 years. Since a lot of economists are expecting a prolonged recession from the coronavirus pandemic, it might be reasonable to assume that many players might find it preferable to stay in school for another year and work on a graduate degree than fruitlessly look for a job in a bad labor market.
There could be a lot of quality or even elite 5th year lacrosse players on the market looking for a team to play for.

[cc2519]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

High school players are in worse shape than College players.

College players already on the team are much less likely to get cut from the team compared to a HS student who may not receive a college offer at all. This is due to the fact that the supply of available empty roster spots for 2022 and 2023 classes may be significantly reduced by the addition of 5th year players. Once a high school player joins a college team, he faces the same disadvantages as the other college players.

I think it is much more convenient and less risky for a coach to take a flyer on a 5th year player than a HS school recruit.
5th year player advantages.
1. Can contribute right away after he/she is recruited for the additional year. HS recruit has to wait 2 years May take 3-4 years to really contribute to the team. By that time, the coach may no longer be coaching the team.
2. Has already been thoroughly tested against college competition, so there is very little uncertainty. HS recruit hasn't been tested at all- everything is based on a HS evaluation and an imprecise forecast for the future.
3. Only plays for 1 year. If it doesn't work out, there is no long term impact. HS recruit is signed for the duration of his college career, unless he is cut from the team or drops out.

But I agree, the college coach needs to stock his roster with HS recruits to fill the gaps when the "coronavirus classes" finally move on. But he probably has the ability to skip 1 HS class (e.g. 2022) entirely and focus exclusively on 5th year exceptions if he was successful in recruiting them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Partially right...maybe! My analysis (such as it is) already assumed three, 5th year seniors coming back. (BTW take a look at most rosters, most schools only have 8-10 seniors on the team, anyway. Hard to imagine more than 3 or maybe four being asked back and then making the life decision to pay for an extra year of school just to play an extra year of lax.) The question then is, who gets squeezed out to make room for those three? I think it might be some combination of rising soph, junior and seniors, rather than incoming recruits...for the reasons I noted above. So the college coach isn't choosing between incoming recruits and 5th year seniors. He's choosing between incoming recruits and borderline / scout team sophs, juniors and seniors. Obviously, certain schools' ability to attract graduate transfers could muddy this situation.

From Inside Lacrosse
"While that is an important next step, it's just one of many, as conferences like the Ivy League and Patriot League have their own sets of rules about fifth-year players and will have to make their own decisions.
As a result, a number of notable Division I players have entered the transfer portal in recent weeks as they await decisions. In many cases, it's an exploratory act by the student-athletes, as many hope to remain at their current school for the 2020-21 year. Of course, factors such as graduate school programs, tuition and postgrad job opportunities will play a role in decision. For now, however, here's a look at many of the notable names that have entered the portal as we await more specifics regarding eligibility.
—Six of Colgate's seniors, including several starters, were among the notable names to enter the portal beginning on March 14, when the Raiders' offensive standouts Griffin Brown and Nicky Petkevich entered their names as grad students. Colgate does not offer graduate school other than a small Master of Arts in Teaching program, so as of now, opening up contact with other programs is the logical move to test the waters. When reached for comment, head coach Matt Karweck expressed that he encouraged his Colgate seniors that hoped to play another year of lacrosse to enter their names in the portal. Several are expected to get a significant amount of interest, and he says all six have been contacted."

It seems like a lot of seniors (Colgate already has 6) are entering the transfer portal, so there is definite interest by quite a few players to explore their 5th year of eligibility. Coaches can also recruit 5th year players from other colleges. Since the Ivy League and Patriot League do not currently allow graduate students to compete, they could be a hotbed of talent for the other D1 lacrosse conferences to recruit from for the next 4 years. Since a lot of economists are expecting a prolonged recession from the coronavirus pandemic, it might be reasonable to assume that many players might find it preferable to stay in school for another year and work on a graduate degree than fruitlessly look for a job in a bad labor market.
There could be a lot of quality or even elite 5th year lacrosse players on the market looking for a team to play for.

As a parent of three - let's see what happens when the rubber meets the road and these kids ask their parents to WRITE THE CHECK or CO-SIGN ON THE LOAN for $25K or more so their son can play an extra year. Will some do it? Definitely. But many won't be able to (or won't want to.) right now, talk is cheap. And something else - as a graduate of business school - I can tell you, managing a sport AND not just classwork but group projects, etc. at a demanding business school is not easy. It can be done, but it's not easy.

[njfanlax]

I don't pretend to know what is going to happen. You could be right. But i think the NCAA eligibility ruling has the POTENTIAL to hurt HS players, specifically in the 2022 and 2023 classes, a lot worse than any other class (college or HS). That's all I've been trying to explain.

[QuakerSouth]

cc,

Welcome to the Board.

You are on the right track.

[wrhuradio]

I don't pretend to know what is going to happen. You could be right. But i think the NCAA eligibility ruling has the POTENTIAL to hurt HS players, specifically in the 2022 and 2023 classes, a lot worse than any other class (college or HS). That's all I've been trying to explain.

NJfanlax: I'll do you one better. the word is not potentially, the word is "Impacted." ALL current HS Players are going to be impacted.
Every one of the current college classes are going to have a substantial percentage of them use their 5th year. So that means in the year 2024 that will be the last Corona-Class, AND I am sure we will see a good handful of SIXTH-year seniors competing for roster spots too. Quite easily.
1 injury, 1 corona-year, 4 years of playing time =6 seasons. And somewhere in NCAA (probably in college baseball) you will see the first-ever 7th year senior after like 2 years of Tommy John + Coronavirus. They already give out 6th year's at a decent rate, and they've concluded that 2020 doesnt count towards your 5 year clock.

At the minimum current 8th graders will have their future college rosters Impacted by guys that are still there.


Lets say there are 600 Div. 1 Class of 2020 seniors that had the end of their careers cut short. What % are we thinking will come back to play anywhere?
50%? I think anything above 75% is way too high.

[njfanlax]

A slightly contrarian take: I think that now that it's passed, the existing college players will bear the brunt of any roster squeeze, etc., rather than high school recruits.

Assume a school convinces three seniors to return for a fifth year, and has to find three roster spots (and money) for them. Why would a coach reduce his recruiting class by three spots? It's hard enough projecting which 5-6 recruits out of 12-13 are gonna pan out. Why make it harder (and riskier) by reducing the class to 9 or 10 players?

Plus, you do that for 2 or 3 years, you run the risk of having a really small upperclass (experienced) roster in 4 years, since there's natural attrition anyway.

Wouldn't it be more effective to find 3 marginal / limited upside players from your existing roster each year and just cut them or take away their scholarships?

High school players are in worse shape than College players.

College players already on the team are much less likely to get cut from the team compared to a HS student who may not receive a college offer at all. This is due to the fact that the supply of available empty roster spots for 2022 and 2023 classes may be significantly reduced by the addition of 5th year players. Once a high school player joins a college team, he faces the same disadvantages as the other college players.

I think it is much more convenient and less risky for a coach to take a flyer on a 5th year player than a HS school recruit.
5th year player advantages.
1. Can contribute right away after he/she is recruited for the additional year. HS recruit has to wait 2 years May take 3-4 years to really contribute to the team. By that time, the coach may no longer be coaching the team.
2. Has already been thoroughly tested against college competition, so there is very little uncertainty. HS recruit hasn't been tested at all- everything is based on a HS evaluation and an imprecise forecast for the future.
3. Only plays for 1 year. If it doesn't work out, there is no long term impact. HS recruit is signed for the duration of his college career, unless he is cut from the team or drops out.

But I agree, the college coach needs to stock his roster with HS recruits to fill the gaps when the "coronavirus classes" finally move on. But he probably has the ability to skip 1 HS class (e.g. 2022) entirely and focus exclusively on 5th year exceptions if he was successful in recruiting them.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Partially right...maybe! My analysis (such as it is) already assumed three, 5th year seniors coming back. (BTW take a look at most rosters, most schools only have 8-10 seniors on the team, anyway. Hard to imagine more than 3 or maybe four being asked back and then making the life decision to pay for an extra year of school just to play an extra year of lax.) The question then is, who gets squeezed out to make room for those three? I think it might be some combination of rising soph, junior and seniors, rather than incoming recruits...for the reasons I noted above. So the college coach isn't choosing between incoming recruits and 5th year seniors. He's choosing between incoming recruits and borderline / scout team sophs, juniors and seniors. Obviously, certain schools' ability to attract graduate transfers could muddy this situation.

If you say 3 players on a team stay for their 5th year and there are 10 recruiting spots/team in a given year, that's not a lot of players for 1 team. But if that statistic is the average for the over 70 NCAA Division 1 men's lacrosse programs, the effect would be huge because you have effectively shrunk the college lacrosse market for HS recruits by 30%. Over 200 kids who would have received D1 offers now are no longer getting recruited. The remainder (approximately 500 kids) who do receive D1 offers are shifted down to lower positions.

[cc2519]

I don't pretend to know what is going to happen. You could be right. But i think the NCAA eligibility ruling has the POTENTIAL to hurt HS players, specifically in the 2022 and 2023 classes, a lot worse than any other class (college or HS). That's all I've been trying to explain.

NJfanlax: I'll do you one better. the word is not potentially, the word is "Impacted." ALL current HS Players are going to be impacted.
Every one of the current college classes are going to have a substantial percentage of them use their 5th year. So that means in the year 2024 that will be the last Corona-Class, AND I am sure we will see a good handful of SIXTH-year seniors competing for roster spots too. Quite easily.
1 injury, 1 corona-year, 4 years of playing time =6 seasons. And somewhere in NCAA (probably in college baseball) you will see the first-ever 7th year senior after like 2 years of Tommy John + Coronavirus. They already give out 6th year's at a decent rate, and they've concluded that 2020 doesnt count towards your 5 year clock.

At the minimum current 8th graders will have their future college rosters Impacted by guys that are still there.


Lets say there are 600 Div. 1 Class of 2020 seniors that had the end of their careers cut short. What % are we thinking will come back to play anywhere?
50%? I think anything above 75% is way too high.

There are about 700 seniors across D1...50% of that is 350 kids. Where exactly are they all going to go? Remember, most of these guys will be GRADUATING in a few months. They actually have to take classes to play sports (I think?)...so take a look at the colleges that actually have grad schools (business etc not esoteric degrees). Take out the 7 Ivy's and the service academies. Take out "mid tier" programs like Colgate, Hobart, Bucknell, Richmond, UVM, Robert Morris, High Point, Marist, Hofstra, etc that don't have many or any grad programs at all. Same goes for lower-tier programs like Detroit Mercy, Furman, Siena, Mercer, Wagner, Lafayette, etc.

Realistically, there's probably 10-15 schools with good to great business schools that will be able to pick and choose from the 2020's - UNC, Duke, UVA, Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgetown, maybe throw in Denver, OSU, Penn State, BU, Syracuse, Maryland and a few others. Realistically, will any of these schools add more than 6 - 8 grad students to their roster? Any more than that, and the team chemistry is at risk, and the optics / public relations looks really bad (IMO.) Frankly, even 6-8 seems a bit shady. Can we imagine the Admissions Committee at very competitive Michigan MBA program just accepting 8 guys (with no real world work experience) because the lacrosse program wants them? But let's say they do, and so do the other schools - That's still just 120 kids in total...assuming they all really want to go to grad school and can afford to do so.

Then assume that these schools reduce their incoming recruiting classes by a commensurate amount each of the next four years. 120 recruits that would've gone to these schools now get spread out over the remaining 60 D1 schools. That's 2 spots per recruiting class, per school. Meaningful, but not earth-shaking. And that assumes none of these 60 schools decides to take an extra recruit or two each year.

Someone test my assumptions (please!), but I really think that the more you think through the 2nd and 3rd order effects of all this, the impact may not be as large as many are assuming right now..

[palaxoff]

Schools also will have the ability to use the NCAA’s Student Assistance Fund to pay for scholarships for students who take advantage of the additional eligibility flexibility in 2020-21.

This was in the a NCAA announcement, so my question is it only a 1 year exemption, meaning all the other under classmen will be subjected to the normal 12.6 scholarship rule after next season?

[laxfan22]

correct, that's a one year exception only

[Laxrules10]

Schools also will have the ability to use the NCAA’s Student Assistance Fund to pay for scholarships for students who take advantage of the additional eligibility flexibility in 2020-21.

This was in the a NCAA announcement, so my question is it only a 1 year exemption, meaning all the other under classmen will be subjected to the normal 12.6 scholarship rule after next season?

If it is a one year exemption, it's because schools are already obligated to give the committed scholarships to HS 2020 players. The HS 2021's are only verbal and can get reduced or dropped if needed to cover 5th year players. HS 2022's on down to 2024 just won't get as many offers.

[bearlaxfan]

Believe the ncaa left the added year scholarship decision up to the individual schools, not the conferences. This could prove... interesting.

[njfanlax]

"There are about 700 seniors across D1...50% of that is 350 kids. Where exactly are they all going to go? "

That's the irony of the NCAA decision. The graduating seniors is the class most impacted by the loss of the spring season because they were likely the ones playing the most minutes and assuming the leadership positions on each team. In addition, there is no next year for those players. So the senior class should be the most deserving of receiving another year. Unfortunately, this class may be the one LEAST able to use the 5th year exception granted by the NCAA. Many probably already have jobs or incompatible graduate schools lined up and cannot change course now. Of the ones who could use the 5th year exception, it is already too late to apply to many graduate schools and spring standardized tests like the GMAT and GRE have been cancelled.


"Realistically, there's probably 10-15 schools with good to great business schools that will be able to pick and choose from the 2020's - UNC, Duke, UVA, Notre Dame, Michigan, Georgetown, maybe throw in Denver, OSU, Penn State, BU, Syracuse, Maryland and a few others. Realistically, will any of these schools add more than 6 - 8 grad students to their roster? Any more than that, and the team chemistry is at risk, and the optics / public relations looks really bad (IMO.) Frankly, even 6-8 seems a bit shady. Can we imagine the Admissions Committee at very competitive Michigan MBA program just accepting 8 guys (with no real world work experience) because the lacrosse program wants them? But let's say they do, and so do the other schools - That's still just 120 kids in total...assuming they all really want to go to grad school and can afford to do so.

Then assume that these schools reduce their incoming recruiting classes by a commensurate amount each of the next four years. 120 recruits that would've gone to these schools now get spread out over the remaining 60 D1 schools. That's 2 spots per recruiting class, per school. Meaningful, but not earth-shaking. And that assumes none of these 60 schools decides to take an extra recruit or two each year."

2 spots/recruiting class is still a contraction of 20%. Any change shifts the supply-demand curve, so even the HS players who do get recruited to a D1 school are adversely affected. They are all shifted lower, unless they reside at the apex of the curve.