IWLCA Open Zoom Call

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I dont think you are a real attorney or at least not a very dynamic one. A good lawyer could absolutely make a case out of this, the legal argument is there and this move, if approved by the NCAA, opens the door to make a case for applying Title IX to the application of recruiting rules and opportunites. This is precisely what litigators do - think outside the box - its how laws are shaped and changed by cases. I hope some dynamic, young hungry litigator (maybe an ex-college lax player) takes this on.

If I were on the NCAA board I would certainly hesitate to rubberstamp this request from the IWLCA because it could defieitely lead to an extension of the application of Title IX.

[Anonymous]

Damnnnnn get that

[Anonymous]

Did you ever think that maybe the coaches want this because it provides a better barometer for figuring out what the kid is actually going to be mike as a player when stepping foot on campus as a groan. I know a number of coaches at top schools who can’t stand recruiting 15 and 16 year olds because so much can happen in 2 or 3 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

College coaches at 2 top 20 programs told us straight up that the 22 and 23 classes will be reduced to 3 per class due to the extension of eligbility granted by the NCAA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

College coaches at 2 top 20 programs told us straight up that the 22 and 23 classes will be reduced to 3 per class due to the extension of eligbility granted by the NCAA.

That’s fine. Not all schools are cutting rosters for the next couple years. The Ivies aren’t. The D3s aren’t. Stop being such a damn negative Nancy. You are clearly just trying to upset people. Go away if you dont have anything helpful to contribute.

[Anonymous]

Ivies in fact are - assuming the Ivy League has a season. Penn is only having 18 back in the spring. Dartmouth 16. Princeton 20. So not enough for a full squad. Girls are taking gap years in droves at Ivies. This will not only jack up the 21 class of commits but it will without question mess with the 22s and 23s. Not conjecture. Fact. Can't speak to the Syracuse, UMDs or UNCs of the world, but can speak from personal experience on the Ivies. Get ready cause its coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

College coaches at 2 top 20 programs told us straight up that the 22 and 23 classes will be reduced to 3 per class due to the extension of eligbility granted by the NCAA.

That’s fine. Not all schools are cutting rosters for the next couple years. The Ivies aren’t. The D3s aren’t. Stop being such a damn negative Nancy. You are clearly just trying to upset people. Go away if you dont have anything helpful to contribute.

Not PP and I agree its a lot negative, but honestly any information at this point is better than the black hole of info we are getting from the clubs right now.

[Anonymous]

No one knows anything because they have never dealt with the situation. The class sizes will be greatly affected. It is important for high school coaches, recruiting coordinators and club directors to guide the players in this environment and come up with a list that will work.

[Anonymous]

^^ + 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ivies in fact are - assuming the Ivy League has a season. Penn is only having 18 back in the spring. Dartmouth 16. Princeton 20. So not enough for a full squad. Girls are taking gap years in droves at Ivies. This will not only jack up the 21 class of commits but it will without question mess with the 22s and 23s. Not conjecture. Fact. Can't speak to the Syracuse, UMDs or UNCs of the world, but can speak from personal experience on the Ivies. Get ready cause its coming.

And the Ivies are threatening to end gap years and deferments for exactly this reason. Don’t expect the easy current processes and procedures for deferments and gap years to remain the same. Changes are coming there too. You start the year you are accepted or be prepared to go to the bottom of the pile the following year. And better have a damn good reason to request a gap year because without one your space may no longer be assured when you want to come back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did you ever think that maybe the coaches want this because it provides a better barometer for figuring out what the kid is actually going to be mike as a player when stepping foot on campus as a groan. I know a number of coaches at top schools who can’t stand recruiting 15 and 16 year olds because so much can happen in 2 or 3 years.

Nope. These same coaches choose Sept 1 of junior year as first contact date just two years ago. Your argument is utter nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I dont think you are a real attorney or at least not a very dynamic one. A good lawyer could absolutely make a case out of this, the legal argument is there and this move, if approved by the NCAA, opens the door to make a case for applying Title IX to the application of recruiting rules and opportunites. This is precisely what litigators do - think outside the box - its how laws are shaped and changed by cases. I hope some dynamic, young hungry litigator (maybe an ex-college lax player) takes this on.

If I were on the NCAA board I would certainly hesitate to rubberstamp this request from the IWLCA because it could defieitely lead to an extension of the application of Title IX.

It still seems like you have little understanding of Title IX. The law only requires equal opportunity, which is measured in scholarship dollars (if applicable) and roster slots. It does not, and never has, applied to an equal number of days/months being recruited. As I have pointed out, the recruiting calendar in lacrosse has been different for men and women for years, and it has never been a problem. Simply put, Title IX focuses on producing a roughly equal outcome, not a duplicate process. That clever lawyer you imagine would find it impossible to prove harm on the basis of gender. In fact, because the recruiting period is simply a competition *within* a gender cohort (X women competing for Y roster spots), the only harmed parties would be mommies and daddies who can't brag that School A called their daughter on September 1.

Of course, there is always a chance I am wrong. If you really believe this is a winnable case, you can certainly put your money where your keyboard is and hire a "dynamic" attorney to argue this case for you. This town is filled with out of the box thinkers who would be happy to facilitate a parting between you and your money.

If you go that route, please promise to keep us updated on the progress of your case!

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't a more successfully route be an EEOC violation, since it is some transparently pay-to-play? Agree Title IX is a stretch for all the reasons noted above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't a more successfully route be an EEOC violation, since it is some transparently pay-to-play? Agree Title IX is a stretch for all the reasons noted above.

For now, at least, athletes are not employees.

[Anonymous]

This is over my head, just put in plain terms. Why does IWLCA not want to recruit and every other sport does. Just put in simple terms. Thanks