5 in 5 rule

[Anonymous]

What makes this rule hurt the most is the fact there are so few D1 lacrosse programs. HS talent is expanding throughout the country faster than college programs are.

[Anonymous]

Unlikely that there will be anymore D1 programs added in the future, they are money losers and schools are looking to reduce bloat as colleges grapple with declining enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay thanks I think I get it. It’s limiting in some respects but also making permanent the expansion to 5 years of eligibility for all. What % take that extra year though?

The good ones most likely. They can now get a grad degree or part thereof.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh I don’t understand how it is crushing for 27s-29s or make getting recruited out of high school harder. Can someone explain it for me again in easy to understand terms? Thank you!

I realize the math is hard for some. Instead of 38 player roster cap/4 years of eligibility or 9.5 player slots per class, you have a 38 player roster cap/5 years of eligibility, or 7.6 player slots per class. This is 2 fewer recruits per class per school.

Making matters worse, for the first few years, with larger average classes already on board, if players elect to stay for their 5th year, the total recruiting need will be even smaller. So you could see some programs, especially top programs that have the ability to bring in top transfers, recruiting only 2-4 players per class, before the compression balances out. The same phenomenon happened with COVID, but was mitigated somewhat as there were no roster limits. Taken together, these two changes could make it very tough for 27s through 30s. Not ideal for those with aspiring college players in those classes--especially if they have ambition to play for a top 40 program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh I don’t understand how it is crushing for 27s-29s or make getting recruited out of high school harder. Can someone explain it for me again in easy to understand terms? Thank you!

I realize the math is hard for some. Instead of 38 player roster cap/4 years of eligibility or 9.5 player slots per class, you have a 38 player roster cap/5 years of eligibility, or 7.6 player slots per class. This is 2 fewer recruits per class per school.

Making matters worse, for the first few years, with larger average classes already on board, if players elect to stay for their 5th year, the total recruiting need will be even smaller. So you could see some programs, especially top programs that have the ability to bring in top transfers, recruiting only 2-4 players per class, before the compression balances out. The same phenomenon happened with COVID, but was mitigated somewhat as there were no roster limits. Taken together, these two changes could make it very tough for 27s through 30s. Not ideal for those with aspiring college players in those classes--especially if they have ambition to play for a top 40 program.

This is correct. Mid to Lower D1 lacrosse programs could benefit from this model. Good players will be pushed down. D2 and D3 as well. It's a game of musical chairs at this point.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think a top D1 program will limit their HS recruits to less than 5 a year. A team needs a solid pipeline of players to bring in and build the program. Team needs stability not massive turnover year over year..

[Anonymous]

You may be right, but "5" is not a very comforting number, if they have been at the 8-10 per class level and you are a 2028 gunning for a top 25 program. That's 75-125 fewer slots.

[Anonymous]

Most college lacrosse players aren't interested in playing 5 years. This rule is going to mostly affect revenue sports where players are getting big NIL. And it doesn't seem to change much because the top teams already are carrying grad students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a top D1 program will limit their HS recruits to less than 5 a year. A team needs a solid pipeline of players to bring in and build the program. Team needs stability not massive turnover year over year..

Right now there are

84 D1 committed 2027 goalies.
99 D1 committed 2026 goalies.

121 2025 goalies.

You won’t break 80 D1 goalies for 2028 if this 5 for 5 passes as expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most college lacrosse players aren't interested in playing 5 years. This rule is going to mostly affect revenue sports where players are getting big NIL. And it doesn't seem to change much because the top teams already are carrying grad students.

This was the logic during covid. It was proven wrong then. There are players out there constantly petitioning for a 6th year,

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t forget the 2-3 years of compression where the current players stay and extra year like during COVID.

Ivies do not allow a 5th year so any player with extra year of eligibility must play somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Simple solution is go to 4 in 5

[Anonymous]

That might solve this group's concern about recruiting compression, but it doesn't address the NCAA's issues with redshirts, medical redshirts, approvals, litigation, etc., so not really a "simple solution".

[Anonymous]

probably not that many take the 5th year because coach may not extend the scholarship. Maybe they will enter the portal to find a coach/program that will pay for them, but coaches will be unlikely to keep deadweight seniors for a 5th year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:probably not that many take the 5th year because coach may not extend the scholarship. Maybe they will enter the portal to find a coach/program that will pay for them, but coaches will be unlikely to keep deadweight seniors for a 5th year

Sure, but starters will likely be retained if they so chose and there is where you have issues with depth charts.

All of sudden, does that 2027 want to watch that starter for 3 of her 5 years?