IWLCA Open Zoom Call

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So many Title IX lawyers on one message board, and not one of them is aware that the men's and women's lacrosse recruiting calendars are already different at the Division I level and have been for a few years.

if you mean the dead periods, that's irrelevant as long as the sum total of the days in the respective dead periods are equal. By making the contact date different, they are allowing males 10 months greater opportunity to be recruited for lacrosse. That is a HUGE difference and clearly unequal on its face.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you understand how Title IX works, and it seems like you are unfamiliar with the recruiting process and its history.

The men's and women's recruiting calendars have been different for years. It's hardly a Title IX violation to have separate calendars, and opportunities are measured by dollars and slots, not months in which PSAs have to vie against other *female* PSAs for the same dollars and slots.

Having to wait until next summer sucks in a lot of ways for '22s, but it will likely save them some money - and it has nothing to do with Title IX.

[Anonymous]

Correct. Title IX is about available spots, e.g. opportunities being equal as a proportion. It has nothing to do with dollars, spot for spot, etc.

But that being said, when you look at the totality of the IWLCA proposal relative to the 22's in the context of the pending 23's and the fifth year holdovers, it does look pretty grim for the 22s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Correct. Title IX is about available spots, e.g. opportunities being equal as a proportion. It has nothing to do with dollars, spot for spot, etc.

But that being said, when you look at the totality of the IWLCA proposal relative to the 22's in the context of the pending 23's and the fifth year holdovers, it does look pretty grim for the 22s

In the call, the IWLCA mentioned the possibility of asking to push back the window for the 23s as well.

[Anonymous]

Does the IMLCA do as many tournaments at IWLCA? I heard the IWLCA is now in tournament business with hosting 6-8 tournaments next year? Is that true? So should all recruit able athletes now go to their tournaments instead?

[Anonymous]

Is the IWCLA the only coaches asking for a delay in recruiting? It's their choice of how sign committed athletes but why punish the men's and other women's sports because of the purported need to see athlete play in person - either financial (clinics, camps, $) or inability to use modern coaching practices - film, HS/club references, etc. Maybe it's a training issue IWCLA needs to address

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct. Title IX is about available spots, e.g. opportunities being equal as a proportion. It has nothing to do with dollars, spot for spot, etc.

But that being said, when you look at the totality of the IWLCA proposal relative to the 22's in the context of the pending 23's and the fifth year holdovers, it does look pretty grim for the 22s

In the call, the IWLCA mentioned the possibility of asking to push back the window for the 23s as well.

That was 'at a later date' but the proposal pending before the NCAA is just the 22s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct. Title IX is about available spots, e.g. opportunities being equal as a proportion. It has nothing to do with dollars, spot for spot, etc.

But that being said, when you look at the totality of the IWLCA proposal relative to the 22's in the context of the pending 23's and the fifth year holdovers, it does look pretty grim for the 22s

In the call, the IWLCA mentioned the possibility of asking to push back the window for the 23s as well.

That was 'at a later date' but the proposal pending before the NCAA is just the 22s.

Right but people are complaining that there may only be 60 days between the 22s and the 23s when the coaches acknowledged it could be longer.

[Anonymous]

Why do they want to move the date?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is the IWCLA the only coaches asking for a delay in recruiting? It's their choice of how sign committed athletes but why punish the men's and other women's sports because of the purported need to see athlete play in person - either financial (clinics, camps, $) or inability to use modern coaching practices - film, HS/club references, etc. Maybe it's a training issue IWCLA needs to address

Let's be crystal clear about the rationale behind this change that the NCAA is set to rubber stamp, its all about personal economics. Period. Part of it is clearly COVID, part of it is also the seniors and juniors that were granted additional eligibility but at least 50 percent or more of it is the lose of the camps and clinic revenues. Boys programs operate completely differently, as they have more showcases with free film to all coaches. In contrast, the girls area under the misimpression that by going and paying the $300 camp/clinic fees will help guarantee them a slot. It doesn't. Pure and simple. Can it maybe help on the margins, possibly. But thats maybe 1/100 girls. So the other 99 are simply fodder for the revenue to the lacrosse programs, which should have always rightfully gone to the schools themself and not the lacrosse program. This is pretty simply. Personal economics is driving this. No college coaches go to see girls during their high school seasons. So whats left - the 4 to 6 week window from mid June to late July, because recall August 1 has always been the start of the dark period for coaches. Why? So that they could preserve their vacations and that is straight from the horses' mouths to the NCAA. If your daughter loves the sport do it for that and that alone, because the economics are just not there otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Correct. Title IX is about available spots, e.g. opportunities being equal as a proportion. It has nothing to do with dollars, spot for spot, etc.

But that being said, when you look at the totality of the IWLCA proposal relative to the 22's in the context of the pending 23's and the fifth year holdovers, it does look pretty grim for the 22s

In the call, the IWLCA mentioned the possibility of asking to push back the window for the 23s as well.

That was 'at a later date' but the proposal pending before the NCAA is just the 22s.

Right but people are complaining that there may only be 60 days between the 22s and the 23s when the coaches acknowledged it could be longer.

Acknowledging and acting are two different things. IWLCA has yet to act on that point, but you have to believe that the 22s are in the toughest spot, but the 23s aren't far behind, when calculated against the lost spots due to the NCAA extending eligibility for lost seasons, schools trying to limit the burden of their non-revenue sports, etc.

[Anonymous]

^^ Yes! definitely watch what they do versus what they are saying

[Anonymous]

This makes no sense?

[Anonymous]

There are no real spots for 2022’s that is what I am hearing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are no real spots for 2022’s that is what I am hearing.

That is absolutely not true. They are not going to skip an enitire year of students - the Dis will still need studnet atheketes who are 2022s. Whats most likely is that for 2022s, 23s, and even 24s, they will be taking about half the numbers they have taken previously.