Actually, allowing additional eligibility due to COVID is a bad decision. Yes it may be great for the grad students etc, but the effect on so many other players including the current freshman and high school players of recruiting age is far more damaging and impactful than the disappointment players who lost a year may have felt. Far more players are adversely impacted than those who would have lost a year.
Using the argument FOR added eligibility, shouldn’t the current freshman also get an added year? Since their ability to play may be taken away due to grads playing ahead of them?
Good decision or bad decision the decision was made and everyone has to play by the same rules. Why is the situation more impactful on current freshmen and High Scholl Players?
No, the current freshmen should not receive an added year. There are always 5th year players and transfers, not playing as a freshmen because you did not earn the playing time over another player should not enable you to have an added year simply because you didn't earn playing time. There are many freshmen who are earning playing time. Life is not fair, nothing is handed to most people it is earned. It is a difficult situation for everyone, do the best you can, where you are with wat you have. Many players (freshmen, sophomores, Juniors, Seniors, Transfers, 5th yr) do not see the field.
The following statement from above blows me away but I guess I shouldn't be surprised:
** "Since their ability to play may be taken away due to grads playing ahead of them?"**
Players / people in general are owed nothing except the chance to compete. Nothing is being taken away from freshmen or any other player for that matter. Players have to earn "playing time" it doesn't matter what year the player is or it they are a transfer.
Thanks for the response.
To use your logic that no one is “owed” anything then why were players granted additional eligibility due to the pandemic? They didn’t earn that eligibility. It was granted due to unforeseen circumstances. Right?
Further, all active roster players were given added eligibility regardless of whether they played or not or whether they “earned” it. Your logic would say that’s not appropriate. Right?
Lastly, I’m sorry your “blown away” by an opinion that’s shared by many within the lacrosse world. Hopefully things will return to normal soon and this great power grab will studied and seen for what it is.
I don't know about their logic but all players are have five years to use their four years of eligibility to compete. I don't know why the NCAA made the decision that they made but you are using an apples and oranges comparison, I guess the NCAA felt that the "chance for players to compete" was taken away from them. Current freshmen (unless they are at an Ivy) have not had their chance to compete taken away.
As for the comment about being "blown away" and that many in the lacrosse world share the following opinion:
** "Since their ability to play may be taken away due to grads playing ahead of them?"**
The above opinion illustrates what is wrong with this sport... Parents think that their daughter is owed something, Just read the comments after an Under Armour Tryout or Selection. Parents complain that the tryout or selections are a joke and that the tryout was not fair.
There are freshmen on many teams who have earned playing time this season. Every year on every team there are players who do not earn playing time (freshmen, sophomore, juniors, seniors). Their ability to play was not "taken away" from them due to "grads" playing ahead of them. They all had / have the opportunity to earn playing time.
What will you say when your daughter is a Junior and the coach brings in a couple of stud freshmen who play over your daughter? Will you say "her ability to play was taken away" or will you say "the freshmen earned their playing time".
I'm not trying to be nasty, I just do not agree with the opinion.
