Reply to Boys 2028 mess - considerations and solutions.

Forum Index » Lacrosse

Reply to "Boys 2028 mess - considerations and solutions. "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the rules change, it is going to be for fewer spots and those aren’t going to go to True players . . . [/quote]

the rules did change. Rosters are capped and colleges are going to be making huge cuts. gaining a spot as a freshman is about to get very cut throat. [/quote]Wait, what?  Huge cuts?  I looked at 3 schools, UVa, Syracuse and UNC, only UNC will be over, and by 5 if they take no more 25s.  They can leak that in 2 years.

Where are all these huge cuts coming from?[/quote]

There was a settlement within the last 1-2 weeks in an antitrust lawsuit about college athletes getting paid and cutting marketing deals. It starts next year, so the 2026 class will be the guinea pigs. I am surprised that more people are not talking about this, because it is a game changer for anyone who wants to play lacrosse in college.  The settlement is being driven by the revenue sports (football/basketball) but the rules apply to all D1 schools in all sports. For mens lacrosse, the rosters will be capped at 48 players, compared to rosters in the 50's or 60's that teams currently carry.  The limit on scholarships will increase from 12.6 up to 48.  Yes, you read that right, there is no cap other than the roster cap. Girls lacrosse have the same roster cap, but only scholarships for 38.  Obviously that won't survive a Title 9 challenge, but it is a moot point because no schools will be able to fund that many scholarships for non-revenue sports.  But the big shots of lacrosse (ND, UVA, Duke) will definitely offer more scholarships than the current 12.6, and as they compete for top players, the number will keep creeping up.  Schools can also compete by telling recruits the great marketing deals that they would get if they become a star at that school.  Lacrosse is not football or basketball, but if your name is Kavanaugh or something similar, you can probably monetize your name/image into the six figures, and the antitrust settlement allows players to do that. This will give big name sports schools a huge recruiting advantage over lesser known schools, and over schools like the Ivies that do not give scholarships and will have a hard time remaining relevant in the top 20 of lacrosse under the new structure.  Nobody knows how this will play out.  But my personal hunch is that the top 10-15 D1 schools will separate themselves from the pack and become like a mini-PLL that get all the TV coverage big time crowds, and marketing deals, and the bottom 75% of D1, and D2/D3 will revert toward the more traditional student/athlete model.  But the quality of play and competition for spots in D2 and D3 teams will increase, because the D1 rosters will be smaller, so a lot of D1 caliber players will go elsewhere. The settlement allows schools to pay players salaries up to a cap of $20 million, which will presumably be spent on football and basketball players.  So you can expect the starting QB at a school like USC, Penn State, or Alabama to be paid $1 million or so.  It will be interesting to see if good D1 lacrosse schools without a football team (Denver, Georgetown) start paying salaries to their lacrosse players.  Whatever happens, this will be a sea change and will play out over the next 5 years or so. my son is a 2026 and working hard on the recruiting process, and honestly I am annoyed at everyone who is supposed to be helping him (HS coach, club coach, club recruiting director) because nobody has told us about this and have not been factoring it into his plan.  Hope this helps.[/quote]Whew.  Lot to unpack here.  
- This was a preliminary settlement agreement, the judge must agree to carry it to a months long challenge period.  Then we'll see.
- No idea why you're annoyed at others.  This was filed at 5.00 Friday.  And again, it's at this point preliminary.  The ADs and football coaches haven't got any idea how this will play out.  Details to date are available for anyone to look up on the internet.  Not sure what your HS coach is supposed to do in this window to change anything.
- There are no scholarship limits anymore for any sport.  Only roster limits.  Women don't get 48 rosters.  Nothing in Title IX law in the last 40-50 years says there have to be equal numbers for the same sport.
- This settlement was drafted by the NCAA and the P5 conferences (prior to Pac 12 imploding, they're included).  Things like roster caps apply to all of them.  For men's lacrosse, that's the B10, ACC and Utah.
- Roster caps also apply to any school that wants to pay athletes directly through the athletic department.  This is likely top basketball schools opting in like the Big East (lacrosse) and G5 schools that want a piece of the CFP.  
- Most all lacrosse schools won't be looking to pay athletes directly. IMO. They can use NIL. So no roster limits.
- There's a downside to giving non-revenue sports additional scholarships at P5s.  At least the first ~40-50 ($2.5 million) will count against the money you can pay football and basketball players.  Good luck selling the AD and football coach on that.  If an athletic department want to spend $7-10 million on scholarships, ok it won't matter because they're over, but this could go any kind of way.
- I looked at 5 P5s.  Uva (who is never over 48), UNC, UMD, Syrracuse and PSU.  All but UNC are already set up to be under the number post-covid in 2026 (not including portal adds and deletes next year).  UNC over by 5.  And again, 80% of D1 lax schools, no roster caps.  In fact, they can give out 100 full rides if they want.
- I agree there may be an NIL marketing bump for schools that lean into it.  
- The P5s already have a huge advantage on non-P5s.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics