Roster Limits for lacrosse

[pcowlax]

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

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

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

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

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

Totally agree re: football. It is a HUGE advantage to have 150+ rosters vs 75. Sure players 140-170 will never see the field but all of these are walk-ons and the ability to run so many drills simultaneously in practice vs top level competition while staying fresh is invaluable. There is frankly probably no college sport where undergrad size difference matters as much as D3 football. In lax, obviously you are at a disadvantage if you have 25-30 players as this limits what you can do in practice Once over 35 though, I don't see increased roster size really giving any sort of competitive advantage and once you are over 60 I think it can only cause problems.

[wgdsr]

with injuries and some other attrition, you have to have at least 40 or you'll be limited in practice.
with 3,500-4,000 high schools, any div 1 coach oughta be able to find 2-3 att or a/m, 4 mids, 3 d, a g and a fogo.

[backerzone]

This is stupid- there is a scholarship limit in all sports- who gives a crap how many players are on the team. D1 football has 85 full rides- if you can convince 150 to come and have most of them pay full boat who cares?

[D2fan]

In my time as a D2 coach, there would be kids that are DI or bust.

If they didn't get their DI looks, they would rather go to an Ohio St. and hang out with buddies rather than playing competitive DII or DIII.

This was the case with a lot Midwest kids. There were a couple that were offered athletic $$$ and turned it down because they didn't see a point in being a DII/DIII athlete. They didn't see a benefit compared to being at a Big 10 or SEC school.

There were also kids that chose to go to a Cal Berkeley or Northwestern over NESCAC, ODAC or Centennial schools.

This isn't on the coaches, colleges, conferences, or the NCAA to regulate. There are always going to be teams that attract a ton of kids and teams that have to scrap hard to get to 25 players.

[Farfromgeneva]

In my time as a D2 coach, there would be kids that are DI or bust.

If they didn't get their DI looks, they would rather go to an Ohio St. and hang out with buddies rather than playing competitive DII or DIII.

This was the case with a lot Midwest kids. There were a couple that were offered athletic $$$ and turned it down because they didn't see a point in being a DII/DIII athlete. They didn't see a benefit compared to being at a Big 10 or SEC school.

There were also kids that chose to go to a Cal Berkeley or Northwestern over NESCAC, ODAC or Centennial schools.

This isn't on the coaches, colleges, conferences, or the NCAA to regulate. There are always going to be teams that attract a ton of kids and teams that have to scrap hard to get to 25 players.

Hobart started getting some higher caliber D1 kids who came after Ali Marpet got into the NFL and suddenly scouts were showing up but have had a lot more attrition. To your point we had this excellent kid from N NJ who decided after two years playing ILB that he'd rather not play football, transferred to Fordham and while they would've probably started him as well he just hung out and partied near Rose Hill. Shame he was really good.

https://hwsathletics.com/sports/footbal ... wney/12636

[Houndfan73]

I didn’t read all the posts so maybe it’s been mentioned….doesn’t the transfer portal take care of most situations and gives the kids options? I don’t see the problem. If a kid isn’t happy or playing, he can go somewhere else as long as there are takers

[Dip&Dunk]

I didn’t read all the posts so maybe it’s been mentioned….doesn’t the transfer portal take care of most situations and gives the kids options? I don’t see the problem. If a kid isn’t happy or playing, he can go somewhere else as long as there are takers

I and many other people hope so. There was a long and detailed thread on the transfer portal highlighted by the tone deaf comments of the Albany HC in March. Two of my three favorite teams cannot take advantage of the transfer portal nor the grad transfer in so I watch it basically from afar.

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

[smoova]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

[wgdsr]

ftr, the guy that started the thread was talking about "heads in beds" schools infringing on the integrity of the game.
for them to go where elsewhere, i'm not sure.

[smoova]

ftr, the guy that started the thread was talking about "heads in beds" schools infringing on the integrity of the game.
for them to go where elsewhere, i'm not sure.

Fair point. I'm not sure "integrity of the game" gets much traction for rule creation/changes ... unless we're talking about faceoffs.

[44WeWantMore]

I think there are two different things.

Back maybe 30 years ago, there was a Texas Football Coach who when asked about recruiting depth said something like, "Well, he may not play for me, but he sure won't be playing for Oklahoma." That is bad for the game, IMHO. But in Football the recruit is getting a full ride, and if he is not starting at Texas, then he was probably never going to be an NFL prospect anyway.

Heads in beds is more like making the entire university experience more attractive to increase enrollment at tuition-dependent institutions. So long as the "recruit" is not misled about playing time, I do not see the harm. If lots of bench-warmers transfer or quit the team, I expect the lacrosse community is small enough that word would get out if they felt misled. Plenty of players would prefer to be bench-warmers than to step down to D-III or Club (of course, plenty of others would prefer the reverse).

And none of the lacrosse equivalents of Texas are tuition dependent. Edit: Meaning a delta of 20 or so heads in beds is irrelevant to them as they turn away plenty of other full-tuition applicants.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

[Farfromgeneva]

I think there are two different things.

Back maybe 30 years ago, there was a Texas Football Coach who when asked about recruiting depth said something like, "Well, he may not play for me, but he sure won't be playing for Oklahoma." That is bad for the game, IMHO. But in Football the recruit is getting a full ride, and if he is not starting at Texas, then he was probably never going to be an NFL prospect anyway.

Heads in beds is more like making the entire university experience more attractive to increase enrollment at tuition-dependent institutions. So long as the "recruit" is not misled about playing time, I do not see the harm. If lots of bench-warmers transfer or quit the team, I expect the lacrosse community is small enough that word would get out if they felt misled. Plenty of players would prefer to be bench-warmers than to step down to D-III or Club (of course, plenty of others would prefer the reverse).

And none of the lacrosse equivalents of Texas are tuition dependent. Edit: Meaning a delta of 20 or so heads in beds is irrelevant to them as they turn away plenty of other full-tuition applicants.

Not to mention 1yr attrition and 5yr graduation rate are quantitative variables in USNWR so even if marginal university heads are going to Pt attention to that

[smoova]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

If the AQ is intended to create more competition for the national championship, I would consider it to be a spectacular failure. I think it's really intended to provide exposure to programs that would not, otherwise, qualify for the tournament.

If you think that the "bottom" 3-4 recruits at each top-20 school's class would not improve squads in the 21-40 range, then we're going to disagree. IME, those are the spots in the recruiting class that many coaches use for "flyers" and "late bloomers" ... and those kids can be the wildcards that can turn good teams into great ones.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

If the AQ is intended to create more competition for the national championship, I would consider it to be a spectacular failure. I think it's really intended to provide exposure to programs that would not, otherwise, qualify for the tournament.

If you think that the "bottom" 3-4 recruits at each top-20 school's class would not improve squads in the 21-40 range, then we're going to disagree. IME, those are the spots in the recruiting class that many coaches use for "flyers" and "late bloomers" ... and those kids can be the wildcards that can turn good teams into great ones.

Very familiar with the NCAA position on AQ-it’s about equal access/opportunity. What is down with it is up to the schools. But it has absolutely helped the growth of the game since 1998 tremendously. No doubt at all.

[smoova]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

If the AQ is intended to create more competition for the national championship, I would consider it to be a spectacular failure. I think it's really intended to provide exposure to programs that would not, otherwise, qualify for the tournament.

If you think that the "bottom" 3-4 recruits at each top-20 school's class would not improve squads in the 21-40 range, then we're going to disagree. IME, those are the spots in the recruiting class that many coaches use for "flyers" and "late bloomers" ... and those kids can be the wildcards that can turn good teams into great ones.

Very familiar with the NCAA position on AQ-it’s about equal access/opportunity. What is down with it is up to the schools. But it has absolutely helped the growth of the game since 1998 tremendously. No doubt at all.

Then we agree - the AQ is about growing the game by exposing non-traditional teams to a national audience, even if it comes at the expense of slightly more competitive teams. I'm just considering whether limiting roster size would more rapidly increase the number of teams actually competing for the national championship.

[Farfromgeneva]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

If the AQ is intended to create more competition for the national championship, I would consider it to be a spectacular failure. I think it's really intended to provide exposure to programs that would not, otherwise, qualify for the tournament.

If you think that the "bottom" 3-4 recruits at each top-20 school's class would not improve squads in the 21-40 range, then we're going to disagree. IME, those are the spots in the recruiting class that many coaches use for "flyers" and "late bloomers" ... and those kids can be the wildcards that can turn good teams into great ones.

Very familiar with the NCAA position on AQ-it’s about equal access/opportunity. What is down with it is up to the schools. But it has absolutely helped the growth of the game since 1998 tremendously. No doubt at all.

Then we agree - the AQ is about growing the game by exposing non-traditional teams to a national audience, even if it comes at the expense of slightly more competitive teams. I'm just considering whether limiting roster size would more rapidly increase the number of teams actually competing for the national championship.

Equality of access. Not the same thing. We should maybe HBS the big schools play with one arm tied behind their backs and with a 3-5 spot to the weaker programs too. It codifies entry into a playoff so there isn’t arbitrary selections. That’s very different than restricting roster sizes.

Equality of opportunity does not mean in any way control roster sizes. The scholarship limits covers that

[smoova]

I do know from the third team I follow closely, there are pre-approved walk-ons that ride the pine, basically never play, no financial assistance, do not travel, could easily play elsewhere and are quite happy to wear the uniform.

I think this nicely highlights the real question: what is the theoretical purpose of roster limits? If the goal is to improve the student-athlete experience, then roster limits are not necessary - players/parents have plenty of information to decide what is best for them. If, instead, the goal is to increase the number of DI teams that are realistically competitive for a national championship (by spreading talent more thinly and ignoring what current student athletes may want), then the idea might be worth exploring.

That’s what the AQ is for and the marginal roster spot at MD isn’t moving the needle. For example, we were quite happy with Brendan Saylor but we wasn’t going to be a game changer for anyone after being squeezed by a strong couple of classes at MD. Or Paolonetti at SBU. Almeida at Bryant. Etc

If the AQ is intended to create more competition for the national championship, I would consider it to be a spectacular failure. I think it's really intended to provide exposure to programs that would not, otherwise, qualify for the tournament.

If you think that the "bottom" 3-4 recruits at each top-20 school's class would not improve squads in the 21-40 range, then we're going to disagree. IME, those are the spots in the recruiting class that many coaches use for "flyers" and "late bloomers" ... and those kids can be the wildcards that can turn good teams into great ones.

Very familiar with the NCAA position on AQ-it’s about equal access/opportunity. What is down with it is up to the schools. But it has absolutely helped the growth of the game since 1998 tremendously. No doubt at all.

Then we agree - the AQ is about growing the game by exposing non-traditional teams to a national audience, even if it comes at the expense of slightly more competitive teams. I'm just considering whether limiting roster size would more rapidly increase the number of teams actually competing for the national championship.

Equality of access. Not the same thing. We should maybe HBS the big schools play with one arm tied behind their backs and with a 3-5 spot to the weaker programs too. It codifies entry into a playoff so there isn’t arbitrary selections. That’s very different than restricting roster sizes.

Equality of opportunity does not mean in any way control roster sizes. The scholarship limits covers that

The scholarship limit? Ha! I know it may come as a shock, but the piddling lacrosse scholarships have very little to do with where the vast majority of (double-play-down, prep school-attending) recruits attend college.

Regardless, I think we may be agreeing - limiting roster sizes would deeply offend the sensibilities of the lacrosse cognoscenti and would undoubtedly deny players the opportunity to sit the bench for their dream school ... but it might be an effective way to make more teams truly competitive for the national championship.

That said, I'm not sure many folks really want a wide-open championship race ...

[10 10 2]

Roster limits would help the MCLA club squads a lot more than the less competitive D1 teams.

[Farfromgeneva]

Roster limits would help the MCLA club squads a lot more than the less competitive D1 teams.

Yep.