Anonymous wrote:The deadline being pushed to April does not make sense. College coaches should be able to attend showcases and sit distanced on a sideline.

Anonymous wrote:Hi. Would like to add value to this. Our 2nd oldest went to Bowdoin. No scholarship but Sport helped her application rise in the admitted pile for sure. Studied abroad, played all 4 years, got the NCAA athletic experience and a phenomenal academic education. NESCAC Schools are amazing. Same with Patriot League. We have nieces and nephews at SEC schools. . .huge rosters and less playing time but great energy and support behind the athletes. Listen to your coaches. Trust your kids. This can be an amazing college experience for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Evidently the players you know are all grad school bound. Taking a broader view though, most are not. I expect that many players are saying they will take the extra year, but that may be before fiscal reality sets in.

Still, rosters are going to be at least somewhat bloated for at least two years. It sounds like there may be some concessions from the NCAA that extra years won't count against scholarship limits (I haven't seen this formally), but I expect those extra costs would be borne by the programs themselves. Some may suck it up, others may limit 5th year scholarships (notwithstanding the P5 rule, which was created for a different reason, certainly not intended for this), and others may limit incoming scholarships, or some combination of these.

IMO, the eligibility extension was a poorly considered knee-jerk decision that causes the 2021, 2022, and 2023 incoming classes to bear most of the brunt of COVID effects. The P5 rule as posted above should not apply for extra years of eligibility to help spread the pain a bit. The NCAA should either let the programs manage their budgets and choose between funding an extra year or an incoming freshman, or fund directly extra years.

Read carefully. I said that players were taking their 5th year OR planning to be grad transfers. I have two college players myself and know many of their club teammates now on other college teams, and many kids withdrew this year and are returning next year to play. Most of these players have some scholarship money (few players anywhere have even 50% rides), but probably not enough to drive the decision. For most of them, they want to stretch their playing careers as long as possible.

So......if they are seniors and not staying to attend grad school...are they paying extra college cost just to play the additional year verse graduating and entering the workforce?

Anonymous wrote:

Evidently the players you know are all grad school bound. Taking a broader view though, most are not. I expect that many players are saying they will take the extra year, but that may be before fiscal reality sets in.

Still, rosters are going to be at least somewhat bloated for at least two years. It sounds like there may be some concessions from the NCAA that extra years won't count against scholarship limits (I haven't seen this formally), but I expect those extra costs would be borne by the programs themselves. Some may suck it up, others may limit 5th year scholarships (notwithstanding the P5 rule, which was created for a different reason, certainly not intended for this), and others may limit incoming scholarships, or some combination of these.

IMO, the eligibility extension was a poorly considered knee-jerk decision that causes the 2021, 2022, and 2023 incoming classes to bear most of the brunt of COVID effects. The P5 rule as posted above should not apply for extra years of eligibility to help spread the pain a bit. The NCAA should either let the programs manage their budgets and choose between funding an extra year or an incoming freshman, or fund directly extra years.

Read carefully. I said that players were taking their 5th year OR planning to be grad transfers. I have two college players myself and know many of their club teammates now on other college teams, and many kids withdrew this year and are returning next year to play. Most of these players have some scholarship money (few players anywhere have even 50% rides), but probably not enough to drive the decision. For most of them, they want to stretch their playing careers as long as possible.

Evidently the players you know are all grad school bound. Taking a broader view though, most are not. I expect that many players are saying they will take the extra year, but that may be before fiscal reality sets in.

Still, rosters are going to be at least somewhat bloated for at least two years. It sounds like there may be some concessions from the NCAA that extra years won't count against scholarship limits (I haven't seen this formally), but I expect those extra costs would be borne by the programs themselves. Some may suck it up, others may limit 5th year scholarships (notwithstanding the P5 rule, which was created for a different reason, certainly not intended for this), and others may limit incoming scholarships, or some combination of these.

IMO, the eligibility extension was a poorly considered knee-jerk decision that causes the 2021, 2022, and 2023 incoming classes to bear most of the brunt of COVID effects. The P5 rule as posted above should not apply for extra years of eligibility to help spread the pain a bit. The NCAA should either let the programs manage their budgets and choose between funding an extra year or an incoming freshman, or fund directly extra years.

Anonymous wrote:Please don't take it the wrong if it applies to your child, I'm just trying to understand something. I get using soccer as a way to get in to some of your top schools where grades may not be enough or getting a scholarship to play at a DI school.

Where is the value of a player going to a small out of state liberal arts school to play D3 soccer where they can't give an athletic scholarship. It basically sounds like continued pay to play but instead of 3-5k, it's now 10 times that. Is it because they couldn't get in anywhere else. Are they really going there for the soccer? Wouldn't it be better to go to a DI in state school and trying to make it on as a walk on. For example VA has some great in state schools that after room and board is still less expensive than an out of state tuition alone. There are also more degree options and resources at the larger schools.

We are just starting to explore this area of playing soccer after high school and was wondering if there is something I may not be aware of in the value of playing DIII.

Anonymous wrote:Haven't you heard? First order of business is to cancel all student loans. Next step will be to make it a tax funded program. Forget scholarships. Free degrees for all. Woo-hoo! Of course...it gets devalued when everyone has one so be prepared to pay for that Master degree.

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing people (parents) going bananas over their kid getting interest from schools that are marginal academically. My kid has their list of schools they want to apply to and if accepted attend. They know the type of school they want to go to. I would hate for them to attend a small liberal arts school in new england area and miss the college experience they want. They could play soccer at other schools that are not very good academically. Most are not going to get any money to play.

You have to realize life will go on once they are done playing, sure play club in college, many great players do. Some club teams could beat the actual school team.

Play out your club career enjoy it, and if by chance the school they want to go to wants them great but I wouldn't suggest changing the college experience they want to play at a school just to say they played soccer in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For a parent with a child considering Division I this has been awful and continues to be.

meh. Everyone is in the same boat, it's not like your athlete is being singled out. What is worse than the delay is that scholarship budgets will be smaller, as will recruiting classes due to the extra year of eligibility.