Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest impact on college lacrosse will not be reclassing or PG years as those are based on individual circumstances not always related to lacrosse. Also the transfer portal as it currently is structured also is based on individual players circumstances as maybe they want a change. This rule could impact a lot of players who just want an extra year. With 77 teams and say 5 stay longer minus the IVY and Academy players who would need to transfer that could still be 500 players a year extra. I think that would impact how many recruits they take this summer. That is a high number but possible.

Got to wonder if these college coaches are noticing the recent trend with transfer portal, where the last two men’s champs are home grown kids who don’t take transfers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The biggest impact on college lacrosse will not be reclassing or PG years as those are based on individual circumstances not always related to lacrosse. Also the transfer portal as it currently is structured also is based on individual players circumstances as maybe they want a change. This rule could impact a lot of players who just want an extra year. With 77 teams and say 5 stay longer minus the IVY and Academy players who would need to transfer that could still be 500 players a year extra. I think that would impact how many recruits they take this summer. That is a high number but possible.

Got to wonder if these college coaches are noticing the recent trend with transfer portal, where the last two men’s champs are home grown kids who don’t take transfers.

Anonymous wrote:The biggest impact on college lacrosse will not be reclassing or PG years as those are based on individual circumstances not always related to lacrosse. Also the transfer portal as it currently is structured also is based on individual players circumstances as maybe they want a change. This rule could impact a lot of players who just want an extra year. With 77 teams and say 5 stay longer minus the IVY and Academy players who would need to transfer that could still be 500 players a year extra. I think that would impact how many recruits they take this summer. That is a high number but possible.

Anonymous wrote:Numbers don’t lie. The 2028 class will be a 1/3 less than 2027s.
Men’s
2027(1133)
2026(3933)
2025(4746)
Women’s
2027(1948)
2026 (3116)
2025 (3808)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You just aren't that smart. The "up to" 30% comes from the Covid number. That was the percentage of players changing their college plans from 4 years to 5 years.

If your 2028 isn't getting those looks, Mom and Dad will send them to the reclass factory to get them older then the next class. The post didn't ask about future classes but that's the end effect on future classes too.

You better believe a substantial portion of 2028's born from 8/1/2008 will be looking to gain that reclass advantage. Parents of kids even older, and we know there are a bunch, will still be looking at it bc the aim is to gain as much advantage as possible to gain entry into a preferred school.

The 5 in 5 is a stupid fix. 4 in 5 remains the way and sports should end at age 25 with no exceptions. If you want to serve in the military or serve your God, go ahead and we respect that but that's your. choice. Get out of the way for the next class and give them a chance.

You think a rising Junior parents are just going to say, hey, let’s repeat soph year, just based on this ruling which limits your eligibility based on age? That’s very counterintuitive and illogical.

Everyone needs to stop looking at this from lacrosse or any other non-revenue prodcing sport parents. This is about minimizing team friction that stems from football and basketball players in the SEC, Big 10, and ACC jumping around schools due to the lawsuit. The NCAA doesn't believe that 28 year old QBs help their brand so they came up with this rule.

What? This will impact all sports. Lacrosse will be very impacted. This is the lacrosse thread. Fact is there will be fewer open spots each year with some players staying for 5 and a roster cap of 48

True 48 on boys, 38 on girls. The justification is football & bball but the impacts are on every sport.

Don’t expect all players to use the 5 seasons either, but the good starters certainly will be playing 5 and that’s going to cause ripple effects on not only playing time, but roster spots.

Not just “good starters” will use the extra year. I know a kid who didn’t play much at MD and is transferring senior year- using his (now 2 years) to play somewhere else. I think we’ll see a lot of this. A kid thinks they might work their way up a depth chart when they’re recruited, they don’t so they transfer after sophomore or junior year knowing they get an extra year to play somewhere else.

Anonymous wrote: if your birth day is in January and you reclass a year in high school, a normal aged kid would be 18 their senior year, but since you reclassed you are now 19 your senior year. If you start college that fall you would still be eligible for 5 years even if you reclassed in hs. The language in the ruling uses the word “following”. Here is the language: “ window begins the regular academic year following the student-athlete's high school graduation or their 19th birthday, whichever occurs first.”

Anonymous wrote:The eligibility clock starts based on age 19 or HS graduation (whichever is earlier), not on when the athlete actually enrolls in college. An athlete who turns 19, graduates HS (or delays/postpones enrollment for a gap year, post-grad year, etc.), and starts college at age 20 would generally still get the full 5-year window from the earlier trigger point. This is intended to create a standardized "5 seasons in 5 years" model (replacing the current 4-in-5 with redshirts/waivers) while tying it to age rather than enrollment date.

Anonymous wrote:U r wrong dude, the legislation specifically covers late college enrollment due to post grad or time off. Start at 20 and finish at 25.