BOTC - US Lacrosse Community Forum Forums NORTHEAST LACROSSE BOTC MAIN FORUM (LI, CT, WC) 2019-2020 Women's DI, II & III College Lacrosse Season

All I can point to is first hand experience from several top D1 schools and both are experiencing many more seniors now changing their mind and coming back for a 5th year. It definitely is due to poor job market or loss of employment based on what these students are saying.

I can't speak to schools with lesser budgets but you would think with all the years of excessive endowments and the amount of new building they have done that these schools would have the money. The difference is whether they are willing to spend it on women lacrosse or not I guess.

I know several schools like Duke who have fairly large endowment funds ( around 9 billion for Duke ) who will be offering no money to the returning seniors . That will have an impact .

I imagine that what schools do for one spring sport they need to be willing to do for all. This isn't just a lacrosse issue. I support the NCAA's decision on granting another year of eligibility, and giving conferences and universities some flexibility with scholarships for seniors who want to return, but won't be surprised if many programs don't get much or any additional scholarship money. Coaches are facing tough decisions.

I'd like to see what the NCAA decides to do if fall sports are cancelled, too. Based on their existing precedent with spring athletes, the fall athletes in all 4 classes (for up to 8 sports) would deserve the same do-over. Let's see how they pay for that. Just for D1 football, it's 125 players and 85 scholarships. And if fall sports are cancelled, could winter sports be next? When will the NCAA learn that it's impossible to make everyone whole?

You must be a real pleasure to be around. There are a million what ifs , why not try to make as many whole as you can. You obviously do not have a college senior and my guess is your kid is still in high school and you realize the competitive landscape just got a little harder. Some of these schools have billions in endowments , let them spend some of that.

"Some of these schools have billions in endowments , let them spend some of that." Sorry, it's all about money and since it's not your money, it's easy for you to say.
My point is that some colleges can't afford to do it or won't be able to do it because it quickly adds up to a lot of money.

https://madison.com/wsj/sports/coll...2a85306-19dc-5969-9a61-d6608992eea4.html

You are obviously not very intelligent . Your “point” is what exactly ? There are schools who can’t afford or don’t care to fund girls lacrosse programs , is your point that those schools that can should not because some schools can’t . Exactly how does it hurt Stanford to dip into their massive multi billion dollar fund and give these players a chance to get back what was taken from them . We get it , your high school player is not very good and this just makes it harder for her to get lucky enough for some college coach to take a chance on her. Tell her to work harder and not rely on the misfortune of others to try and bolster her chances .

You must have your head in the sand. This has nothing to do with HS. The University of Wisconsin has plenty of money to provide an extra year for spring athletes, but chose not to because it doesn't make financial sense to do so in this economic climate.

"He said the athletic department is modeling three budgets for next season: one with competition returning in full; one with no fall sports, including football; and one with no fall or winter sports."

"One of the arguments against having senior athletes return for another season, Alvarez said, was other students won’t get a chance to finish a semester of studying abroad or be able to take part in a final musical performance that was canceled. 'Anybody that went through that, it just ended,/ he said. 'And so, I think our faculty reps thought that it shouldn’t be one group be cherry-picked to get credit and be able to come back to pick up that year of eligibility.'"


The ACC is also considering doing the same thing.


https://www.thestridereport.com/post/breaking-wisconsin-bars-seniors-from-returning-acc-may-follow

You and the author of that article are misinformed at best . Again with your logic they should choose to eliminate all future scholarships in “this economic climate “. In actuality the study abroad kid will still be able to do so in the future and the musical performer can go to grad school and still perform in a musical while the athlete would not have that option . Not sure why you do not get the clock in terms of eligibility ends for athletes it does not for these other students you are speaking about .

No, a lot of schools are just trying to stay afloat. Those school who are financially stable are taking significant losses.

Big 12 commissioner and staff are taking a 10% pay cut.
University of Louisville coaches are now taking a 10% pay cut.
Iowa State University Athletics Department staff and coaches are also taking a pay cut.
Old Dominion University just dismantled its wrestling program.
University of Bridgeport Athletics Department is laying off many of its staff.
The Stanford University President and Provost are both taking 20% pay cuts.

Colleges are primarily about education and NOT about sports, so that is why Wisconsin decided to cut out the athletes. It's a shame, but just like HS, they don't have an obligation to give
any athlete 4 years of sports.

You are right:
The music performer can go to grad school
The study abroad kid will still be able to do so in the future

And the women's college lacrosse player can still play lacrosse after college... If she is good enough, she can play still lacrosse for the WPLL.

Again you are just misinformed , ODU cutting wrestling is unrelated to Carona . If you are equating playing in the WPLL to playing in the NCAA you are clueless. Actually there is an obligation for 4 years of sport to be available to student athletes as long as certain criteria are met by the athletes and there have been many law suits and precedent in the past in this regard . You are okay with the study abroad and music performer being made whole but don’t want the same option for athletes.
You say in one comment it has nothing to do with HS then go on to mention HS athletes . They also have several avenues to get their high school year back if they wish to do so and again why not give as many as possible the opportunity to get back what they lost .
It’s obvious you are only concerned about the impact this may have on your daughter , what’s funny is the obvious pleasure you are getting from some of these schools not allowing 5th years to return will in the end make it harder for your daughter to get recruited .

Anyone know the list of Women’s players in transfer portal?

The Coaches

Article from another lacrosse site.

Cincinnati Soccer Portends for NCAA Lacrosse

Due to athletic department budget restrictions amid the coronavirus pandemic, Cincinnati has shut down its men’s soccer program. This move by the University of Cincinnati portends for NCAA Lacrosse. Like Cincinnati Soccer, NCAA Lacrosse programs are going to get shut down.

Director of Athletics John Cunningham announced the university’s decision Tuesday, which is effective immediately. Cincinnati will honor soccer players’ scholarships for the duration of their academic careers and allow them to be released immediately from the Bearcats’ roster if they wish to transfer to another program.

“This was a difficult decision, but one made with the long-term interests of UC Athletics at the forefront,” Cunningham said in a statement. “During this time of profound challenges and widespread uncertainty, I have engaged in a comprehensive and thorough review of UC’s sport offerings and long-term budget implications of supporting the number of student-athletes currently at UC. Based on this review, and in consultation with President Pinto and other university leaders, UC Athletics will no longer sponsor a men’s soccer program.

“Our men’s soccer student-athletes have been outstanding representatives of the university in the classroom and on the field,” Cunningham said. “They may not fully understand this decision, but I want them to know they were truly and conscientiously considered during my deliberations about the future of UC Athletics.”

The university started its men’s soccer program in 1973, and the Bearcats recorded an all-time record of 385-408-84. The team went 5-11-1 last season, and longtime head coach Hylton Dayes stepped down from his position in March.

The ending of Cincinnati’s men’s soccer team could potentially be the first domino to fall in a string of other schools cutting sports programs. With sports shut down during the pandemic, universities are financially impacted by the lack of revenue coming in and face even bigger budget restrictions if football season does not start on time or is canceled this fall. Sports Illustrated’s Ross Dellenger and Pat Forde explored how the NCAA system hangs in the balance amid this uncertain time.

Most schools do not make money off the majority of their sports and rely heavily on college football and men’s basketball to keep their athletic departments afloat financially. Schools are already looking at ways to save money by asking athletic directors and department leaders to take pay cuts, extending football season-ticket renewal deadlines or reducing teams’ travel budgets. With college football’s status up in the air, many other college sports could continue to be impacted.

There was talk about the program being dropped for some time and honestly they are using this as an excuse . Yes other programs will do the same especially for programs they were already thinking of dropping .

The AD from Notre Dame was on Golic and Wingo (ESPN radio) this morning and they asked him about spring sports and the extra year of eligibility. Each school will be different but at ND he said it will be up to the coaches of each sport to decide how to handle it, with 3 parameters:
1. The student athlete must complete their undergraduate degree within 4 years.
2. They must apply to, be accepted and enroll in a graduate program at the school.
3. The coaches will build their teams within the confines of their budgets, with the athletes getting the same, less or no financial package.

Furman is discontinuing its D1 men's lacrosse program and baseball program

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/arti...se-program-amid-financial-concerns/56421

Other school-wide cuts include: 20% pay cut for the President, 10% pay cut for other highly paid staff, 5.5% reduction in operating budget for next fiscal year, summer furloughs for employees with diminished workloads, and reducing the total # of athletic scholarships by 45 over the next 5 years.

I think all 2020s, 2021s, and 2022s will feel the impact somehow, whether it be the disbandment of a program, reduced # of scholarships, reduction of scholarship $$$ offered, smaller rosters, you name it. There's no way to sugarcoat this.

I think it affects 2021s, 2022s, and 2023s.
2020s have already signed their NLI; so if they are receiving a scholarship, it should be safe for next year.

If they do not have a college football season, I think you will see many schools go the way like Furman. We have already seen the huge revenue loss from no basketball and March Madness. he dollar impact on a loss of college football could change the college sports world forever...IMHO

Unless of course the program is disbanded. Probably will hit private schools hardest.

I guess it's pretty obvious at this point that no university is using its endowment to sustain its athletics department and keep its athletics programs intact.

Here's the list of schools who have eliminated sports programs since the coronavirus epidemic.

Furman is discontinuing its baseball and men’s lacrosse programs.
Cincinnati is eliminating its men’s soccer program.
Bowling Green is cutting its baseball program.
Old Dominion is pulling the plug on its wrestling program.
Akron is eliminating men’s cross country, men’s golf and women’s tennis.
FIU is cutting its men’s indoor track and field program.
Wisconsin-Green Bay is suspending its men’s and women’s tennis programs.
The Charlotte Observer reports East Carolina is “looking to trim at least one of 20 sports.”
Central Michigan University is eliminating its men's track & field program.

So far, Furman is the only private school on the list.

So potentially there could be some women's programs being eliminated which would place more players in the transfer portal in addition to all those who have the extra year of eligibility to use as well. Tough road ahead for the 2020's down to the 2023's.

All of those girls who are staying another year or who are transferring to other schools are basically taking playing time and potential scholarship money away from the other girls (younger) already on the team.

Holdbacks all over again!

Not if the younger girl(s) are better, there will always be obstacles in life and sports. Sorry your little princess can’t overcome them.

The hasty decision by the NCAA to grant the extra year of eligibility will be felt for years to come in both the men's and women's game. Budget cuts and possibility of schools eliminating programs leaves even less roster spots. Yes that's life, but it still stinks for all these young players.

Here you go again with your inane and offensive remarks. Of course, nothing you have posted has turned out to be accurate.

Let's look at the list of girls (that we know of) who have transferred or stayed for their 5th year of eligibility for next year.

UNC: Kerrigan Miller (USC), Katie Hoeg
Syracuse: Emily Hawryschuk, [ChillLaxin] Goldstock
Duke: Gabby Rosenzweig (Penn)
Ohio State: Kelsey Reed (JMU), Mary Kate Bonanni (Cornell)
Northwestern: Sammy Mueller (Virginia)
Michigan: Quinn Melidona
Penn State: Maria Auth
Georgetown: Natalia Lynch
Loyola: Holly Lloyd, Meaghan Quinn
Stony Brook: Katie Huff (USC), Ally Kennedy, Kylie Ohlmiller

What do all of these girls have in common? They were all the best players on their teams this spring. Many were pre-season 2020 All-American candidates or were All-Americans last year. Even a great player like Caroline DeBellis (entering freshman) is probably going to lose playing time next year to Gabby Rosenzweig at Duke.

This probably doesn't matter to your daughter for 1 of 2 reasons.
1. Your daughter is All-American caliber already.
2. Your daughter plays for a non-competitive program where players are unlikely to stay an extra year or transfer there.

My guess is #2.

Stop being so dramatic and blaming these returning 5th years for all your issues. First off non of those programs are closing because seniors are coming back. It will have little impact on the 2020 class other than some getting less playing time . It will impact the 2022 -2023 class the most but honestly if your kid wants to play in college there is a spot for them. I have not heard of it but will be interesting to see if any college coaches decrease their offers to some of the 2021 players as they have not signed a NLI.
In the end there was going to be some unhappy players out there. The coaches wanted to do the right thing for their seniors and so did the ADs as these kids have given 3.5 years of their lives to the program and school while your high school player has given them nothing and may wash out .I commend their decision to stay loyal to the players that have stayed loyal to them.

Except that whole coach and player loyalty goes out the window with the transfers.

Well you sound silly, girls who gave 3.5 years to a program or school, yet transfer to another, that’s got me
Confused! You still want to argue how this is ok to the girls who were at that school for 3.5 years waiting to play and now won’t! Hm guess it depends what side of the fence you are on how one might feel about this.

I still believe the NCAA got it wrong by extending the fifth year across all 4 classes. It should have only been available to this years senior class. In hindsight This decision was made a bit too hasty.. as it looks like covid-19 will be effecting the fall athletic programs also.. Will the NCAA follow its own president and give a fifth year to 4 classes of soccer and football this season as well?.. this decision has and will continue to create an untenable ripple effect..not only for athletes but coaches,assistants,trainers etc..

Dont be surprise if this 5th policy is altered again in some way.

[/quote]


Stop being so dramatic and blaming these returning 5th years for all your issues. First off non of those programs are closing because seniors are coming back. It will have little impact on the 2020 class other than some getting less playing time . It will impact the 2022 -2023 class the most but honestly if your kid wants to play in college there is a spot for them. I have not heard of it but will be interesting to see if any college coaches decrease their offers to some of the 2021 players as they have not signed a NLI.
In the end there was going to be some unhappy players out there. The coaches wanted to do the right thing for their seniors and so did the ADs as these kids have given 3.5 years of their lives to the program and school while your high school player has given them nothing and may wash out .I commend their decision to stay loyal to the players that have stayed loyal to them.[/quote]

First of all, I'm not blaming any players or their families. The NCAA made a rule change, and they would be notIntelligent not to consider taking advantage of it if it benefits them. If I had a child in the same situation, I would tell her to consider it, too.

Second, these are not just my "issues." There are a lot of people who are in the same boat as me, and they may not even realize it.

My original point was that although people talk about how the NCAAA ruling adversely affects HS students (which it does), it adversely affects college players as well. Because there is a fixed of amount playing time in a game, a fixed amount of scholarship money (which is redistributed every year), and finite # of roster spots on any team, the NCAA ruling essentially results in a zero-sum game. If you look at the names of both male and female players who have transferred or are staying for their 5th year, it's easy to tell who the winners are and by extension who are the losers. I've heard that some men's lacrosse programs already have upwards of 4 5th year players on their roster for next year. Using the analogy of serving a pie, each 5th year player is akin to an extra mouth to feed. Judging by the lists generated so far, the 5th year players ALL look like they will be getting the biggest slices on the team; and as a result, the rest of the team will be getting substantially smaller slices. That doesn't seem very fair either.

I was OK for applying the NCAA ruling to the current college seniors, since they "lost" the most. But letting this situation occur every year for the next 4 years is excessive. Like the previous posters have opined, I don't think the NCAA thought out their decision very well when they made it. It was well-intentioned, but very flawed. It's impossible to make everyone whole.

The Syracuse Women’s Lacrosse Team just announced they are returning 10 of 11 seniors for next year.
I never thought any team would keep so many players, and I
wonder how the rest of the Syracuse team feels about the news.

No ,actually it makes it shows the coaches and ADs have more of a commitment to do the right thing for these seniors who have given all they have for their schools and programs . They supported what was in the best interest of their players even if those players decide to transfer .