Transfer Portal 2023

[The Orfling]

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

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

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

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

Yale seems to be losing 6 graduating seniors this year, 5 of whom started in the class of 2021 (including Chris Fake and Brian Tevlin). If you play "roster sleuth" it appears that all but one player of those originally in the class of 2022, will be returning because they were listed as juniors on the roster after (I believe) taking spring 2021 and fall 2022 semesters off. The most high profile among the original '22s are Matt Brandau and Thomas Bragg (of the Bazooka outside shot on EMO). I'll be curious if original '23s stay through '24 and original '24s stay through the 2025 season (including guys like Stuzin, listed on the roster as a sophomore but who might have three years of Yale eligibility left should he choose to stay for all three years).

It should go without saying but I know we all want these young men, who've had to deal with these COVID disruptions, to live their best lacrosse and non-lacrosse lives -- so as we go forward, I'll be rooting for any Yale player whether he chooses to stay at Yale as a 5th year senior or get a portal opportunity elsewhere, or move on for work and personal opportunities beyond college.

[Farfromgeneva]

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

How much of this is schadenfreude regrading the old complaint about then Duke kids getting an extra year back in the day?

[MDlaxfan76]

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

I understand the compression, as well as the seeming advantage for teams that are destinations for transfers for one reason or another.

I also understand that only the most likely to get playing time players are likely to use that extra year of eligibility. Bench guys are often the first to drop off anyway, and certainly that would be the case in this situation.

A whole lot of kids didn't get to play at all, whether bench or starter, didn't matter which class year. And, it seems to me, nearly all players have to compete and adapt each year to find a place, whether on a roster or on the field. For nearly all, there's other guys ahead of them to beat out...and I say that as a goalie, with a goalie dad and goalie son, so only one guy at a time on the field...(though no dog in the current hunt).

But I'm not so sure I see/saw Covid restrictions as only a cost to that one senior class...all the kids didn't get to play, including down into HS for that matter. Yes, the Ivies had tougher COVID restrictions, but I don't see any reason why the athletes' college opportunities aren't what's most important from an NCAA perspective...at many schools, kids can choose to redshirt a year (no medical required) and take their time going through college...not so at the Ivies normally...but in this particular period, that's what essentially the Ivies allowed, same as any other school...why should the NCAA not honor that? Because some folks think they overreacted to Covid? So what? It's the same as a redshirt...

Ivies have only allowed players to take longer, IF they are not taking classes and thus don't complete their degree requirements. Not true most other places where there's no such done and out. If you do finish your requirements, the Ivies have instituted an exception, at least temporarily, enabling a player to stay with their program IF they get accepted at their college in a grad program...but that's much harder to get as there are very few spots available at most Ivies, and no extra help. so, sure, Ivies are at a disadvantage versus UMD...and Duke and Rutgers...etc...but that's always the case with the differences between Ivy and others' rules (exception military). I don't hear Ivies whining about their disadvantages. Is what it is...

[InsiderRoll]

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

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

Kirst never started his clock. He showed up at school and effectively said I’m not playing. So technically even by the old rules he’s fine - you can probably make an argument if he and others used athletic facilities and the strength coach that it should count (I do not know if that was even the case).

As for Shellenberger. He technically doesn’t get an extra year. Redshirt or COVID year, he would only get 4 years. 21, 22, 23, 24. He’s doesn’t get a second redshirt year to make it 6 years.

I think you have an axe to grind and I get it, but you’re not operating on all facts and the fact is the ruling is what it is at this point. No sense in complaining about it.

[Farfromgeneva]

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

I understand the compression, as well as the seeming advantage for teams that are destinations for transfers for one reason or another.

I also understand that only the most likely to get playing time players are likely to use that extra year of eligibility. Bench guys are often the first to drop off anyway, and certainly that would be the case in this situation.

A whole lot of kids didn't get to play at all, whether bench or starter, didn't matter which class year. And, it seems to me, nearly all players have to compete and adapt each year to find a place, whether on a roster or on the field. For nearly all, there's other guys ahead of them to beat out...and I say that as a goalie, with a goalie dad and goalie son, so only one guy at a time on the field...(though no dog in the current hunt).

But I'm not so sure I see/saw Covid restrictions as only a cost to that one senior class...all the kids didn't get to play, including down into HS for that matter. Yes, the Ivies had tougher COVID restrictions, but I don't see any reason why the athletes' college opportunities aren't what's most important from an NCAA perspective...at many schools, kids can choose to redshirt a year (no medical required) and take their time going through college...not so at the Ivies normally...but in this particular period, that's what essentially the Ivies allowed, same as any other school...why should the NCAA not honor that? Because some folks think they overreacted to Covid? So what? It's the same as a redshirt...

Ivies have only allowed players to take longer, IF they are not taking classes and thus don't complete their degree requirements. Not true most other places where there's no such done and out. If you do finish your requirements, the Ivies have instituted an exception, at least temporarily, enabling a player to stay with their program IF they get accepted at their college in a grad program...but that's much harder to get as there are very few spots available at most Ivies, and no extra help. so, sure, Ivies are at a disadvantage versus UMD...and Duke and Rutgers...etc...but that's always the case with the differences between Ivy and others' rules (exception military). I don't hear Ivies whining about their disadvantages. Is what it is...

Hurts the smaller/less historically successful programs a lot more in that they rely on underclassmen more on the margin and losing 1-2yrs in HS is killer to that individual and depth building development .

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

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

Kirst never started his clock. He showed up at school and effectively said I’m not playing. So technically even by the old rules he’s fine - you can probably make an argument if he and others used athletic facilities and the strength coach that it should count (I do not know if that was even the case).

As for Shellenberger. He technically doesn’t get an extra year. Redshirt or COVID year, he would only get 4 years. 21, 22, 23, 24. He’s doesn’t get a second redshirt year to make it 6 years.

I think you have an axe to grind and I get it, but you’re not operating on all facts and the fact is the ruling is what it is at this point. No sense in complaining about it.

The class listings are odd. You can’t play as a graduate student in the Ivy league, even if you have eligibility left. A guy playing two years of Ivy League lacrosse, yet graduates, can’t keep playing. No sure what Sophomore and Senior means for Kirst and Adler (back next year) Handley had the same sort of designation (senior) but he’s back next year. Graduate students were given a one time pass this season.

[MDlaxfan76]

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

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

Kirst never started his clock. He showed up at school and effectively said I’m not playing. So technically even by the old rules he’s fine - you can probably make an argument if he and others used athletic facilities and the strength coach that it should count (I do not know if that was even the case).

As for Shellenberger. He technically doesn’t get an extra year. Redshirt or COVID year, he would only get 4 years. 21, 22, 23, 24. He’s doesn’t get a second redshirt year to make it 6 years.

I think you have an axe to grind and I get it, but you’re not operating on all facts and the fact is the ruling is what it is at this point. No sense in complaining about it.

The class listings are odd. You can’t play as a graduate student in the Ivy league, even if you have eligibility left. A guy playing two years of Ivy League lacrosse, yet graduates, can’t keep playing. No sure what Sophomore and Senior means for Kirst and Adler (back next year) Handley had the same sort of designation (senior) but he’s back next year. Graduate students were given a one time pass this season.

one time pass, only this season?...or one time pass for those already matriculated at time of decision?
I seem to recall that there seemed to be some ambiguity or fluidity to the decision...has it evolved at all?

[Typical Lax Dad]

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

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

Kirst never started his clock. He showed up at school and effectively said I’m not playing. So technically even by the old rules he’s fine - you can probably make an argument if he and others used athletic facilities and the strength coach that it should count (I do not know if that was even the case).

As for Shellenberger. He technically doesn’t get an extra year. Redshirt or COVID year, he would only get 4 years. 21, 22, 23, 24. He’s doesn’t get a second redshirt year to make it 6 years.

I think you have an axe to grind and I get it, but you’re not operating on all facts and the fact is the ruling is what it is at this point. No sense in complaining about it.

The class listings are odd. You can’t play as a graduate student in the Ivy league, even if you have eligibility left. A guy playing two years of Ivy League lacrosse, yet graduates, can’t keep playing. No sure what Sophomore and Senior means for Kirst and Adler (back next year) Handley had the same sort of designation (senior) but he’s back next year. Graduate students were given a one time pass this season.

one time pass, only this season?...or one time pass for those already matriculated at time of decision?
I seem to recall that there seemed to be some ambiguity or fluidity to the decision...has it evolved at all?

I thought it was one time. I didn’t think it would roll forward for any kid impacted but I could be wrong.

EDIT: https://www.thedartmouth.com/article/20 ... 3-and-2024

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... atform=amp

[smoova]

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.

[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.

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.

[Laxmaninamillion]

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. Loyola had 9 graduated seniors return for their extra year of eligibility due to COVID. As a result the entire freshmen class had an entire group of veteran class ahead of them (4 classes instead of 3). Those freshmen will face the same “extra class” for two more years. Only as seniors will they not have an additional class ahead of them. As a result few freshmen got to play this year, in essence wasting a year. Schools like Syracuse redshirted 10 freshmen. Patriots couldn’t do that. I see two highly recruited freshmen at Loyola are in transfer portal. Likely cause was extra class and not getting to play. They would be faced with an extra class the next two years.

These 2020, 2021, 2022 and even 2023s all get screwed due to the extra COVID years given to the players who were in college during the cancelled year. They lost a year of HS and at least one summer. Now they, in essence, lose a year of college.

NCAA made a bad decision granting everyone an extra year due to COVID. Those kids got an entire fall as well as a number of games in the spring of 2020 and now get an extra year. Bad decision.

[keno in reno]

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.

[Laxxal22]

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.

[smoova]

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).

[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.

[Ice1570]

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

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

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

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

1-Fake, Tevlin, Eschbach, Starr and Cabrera
2-Everybody except Neuman. And Cabrera will be back as a 6th year (from his HS graduation)
3-Fake, Tevlin and Eschbach from ‘22 team

[Ice1570]

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

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

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

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

But maybe my math is wrong?

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

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

In regard to Kirst, nothing is different than the pre-pandemic rules. You have always had five years to play four. And the Ivy has never allowed grad students. He’s going to have a year left on his five-year clock and one year of eligibility. He shouldn’t have been charged a season of eligibility since he didn’t play last year, and he wasn’t.

[keno in reno]

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?

[nyjay]

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.

[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.