Roster Limits for lacrosse

[River Donkey]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

[River Donkey]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

[bar_down]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

[wgdsr]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

[smoova]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

This is an interesting perspective. If I understand the premise, limiting rosters would prevent schools from taking classes of >15 and, by extension, hoarding talented players (many of whom would likely never play meaningful minutes) away from other/"lower" schools.

[bar_down]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

Did he win because he took 50 players or because he took Tony Dorsett? I didn’t realize he had a 50 player recruiting class. That’s insane.

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

[bar_down]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

Did he win because he took 50 players or because he took Tony Dorsett? I didn’t realize he had a 50 player recruiting class. That’s insane.

No one football player is good enough to carry a team to a national title singlehandedly. That Pitt team had a ton of future NFL players. Dorsett was clearly the best of the bunch though.

[bar_down]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

Why do you assume it doesn’t benefit the player? Imagine the horror of not being the 60th player on the Hopkins roster but being a contributor at Dartmouth.

Every year kids at the schools with bloated rosters transfer because they can’t travel with the team, let alone play. Or consider the kids who quit the sport because they get to their “dream” school only to find out they will never see the field.

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

Why do you assume it doesn’t benefit the player? Imagine the horror of not being the 60th player on the Hopkins roster but being a contributor at Dartmouth.

Every year kids at the schools with bloated rosters transfer because they can’t travel with the team, let alone play. Or consider the kids who quit the sport because they get to their “dream” school only to find out they will never see the field.

i get it. you would rather other people make that decision for them.

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

Did he win because he took 50 players or because he took Tony Dorsett? I didn’t realize he had a 50 player recruiting class. That’s insane.

majors was hired in '72?-'73 and that was the last year of unlimited schollys.
sherrill puts the guess at 76, but they didn't come out of camp with that many:
https://archive.triblive.com/news/class ... al-season/

[Typical Lax Dad]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

Did he win because he took 50 players or because he took Tony Dorsett? I didn’t realize he had a 50 player recruiting class. That’s insane.

majors was hired in '72?-'73 and that was the last year of unlimited schollys.
sherrill puts the guess at 76, but they didn't come out of camp with that many:
https://archive.triblive.com/news/class ... al-season/

Tony Dorsett may have been the best college running back I have ever seen and OJ Simpson was the best pro I have ever seen.

[wgdsr]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

Did he win because he took 50 players or because he took Tony Dorsett? I didn’t realize he had a 50 player recruiting class. That’s insane.

majors was hired in '72?-'73 and that was the last year of unlimited schollys.
sherrill puts the guess at 76, but they didn't come out of camp with that many:
https://archive.triblive.com/news/class ... al-season/

Tony Dorsett may have been the best college running back I have ever seen and OJ Simpson was the best pro I have ever seen.

i would take earl campbell ahead of td (and even with hershel and with adrian peterson right there), but no one touches barry sanders at okie st.

[River Donkey]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

[wgdsr]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

[bar_down]

Personally I feel roster limits is long overdue for lacrosse. Schools are abusing the integrity of the game as a way to facilitate higher enrollment numbers. “Heads in beds” programs are becoming more and more common. I can go on and on but more looking for other peoples opinions. I think a roster limit of 50 would be more then fine.
D1 baseball has roster limits, why not lacrosse??

who needs to be protected from unlimited rosters?

The non ACC/B1G programs? There is no reason why any program needs a 60+ man roster. A couple ACC/B1G schools routinely take 15-17 players in a recruiting class.

so then programs? and players can't go to school where they choose as a result, that's the end game?

It happens in other sports all the time. The goal is to grow the game not to allow the schools with tons of resources hoard all the players. If they didn’t have roster limits in football Alabama would have 120 four and five star recruits. It’s not healthy for the sport. The NCAA put the limits in after Johnny Majors took a 50 player recruiting class at Pitt and won a national championship.

ok. so not a rule change to benefit players, then.
what i think won't change anything, and we all have different visions of equity.

Why do you assume it doesn’t benefit the player? Imagine the horror of not being the 60th player on the Hopkins roster but being a contributor at Dartmouth.

Every year kids at the schools with bloated rosters transfer because they can’t travel with the team, let alone play. Or consider the kids who quit the sport because they get to their “dream” school only to find out they will never see the field.

i get it. you would rather other people make that decision for them.

I think that a fairly simplistic way of looking at it but you do you boo.

[River Donkey]

I don’t think anyone needs to be protected but to see some rosters of 75 and other programs struggling to get 30 isn’t good for the game. Plus factor in the guys on larger rosters who really have zero chance at every seeing playing time. Some probably would be better off going to a different school where they have a chance to play.

do you believe these players are unaware of the roster size and the difficulty factor of getting on the field?

and if no, is it better that someone else makes their choice for them?

I believe they players are aware of the roster sizes but I think they are a little optimistic about their ability and somewhat misled about their chances of seeing time.
And no I don’t think it’s better for them for someone else to make their choice for them. But if there was roster limits they wouldn’t be getting recruited or have a choice to make.

so someone else is making their choice. school presidents, in fact.

No, my point was if they weren’t being recruited to play lacrosse they wouldn’t be interested in that school.