Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think folks making this more complex than it is. Everyone on a roster in Sep and after would get 5 years to play 5 seasons.

If your a 2025 who just redshirted, you still get 4 more years.

If your a 2925 who did not redshirt, you still get 4 more years etc

Because it's not that simple. If you're too old, for example. Or if you've used a 2nd redshirt, for example.
None of which is complicated or complex.

Of course the age restriction comes into, play, that’s the whole point. I thought that went without saying lol

You said folks are making it more complex than it is, and everyone on the roster this fall will get 5 years to play 5. That's not the case. There are 4+ years of classes that could have 2 or more redshirt years under their belts, and will use that instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think folks making this more complex than it is. Everyone on a roster in Sep and after would get 5 years to play 5 seasons.

If your a 2025 who just redshirted, you still get 4 more years.

If your a 2925 who did not redshirt, you still get 4 more years etc

Because it's not that simple. If you're too old, for example. Or if you've used a 2nd redshirt, for example.
None of which is complicated or complex.

Of course the age restriction comes into, play, that’s the whole point. I thought that went without saying lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think folks making this more complex than it is. Everyone on a roster in Sep and after would get 5 years to play 5 seasons.

If your a 2025 who just redshirted, you still get 4 more years.

If your a 2925 who did not redshirt, you still get 4 more years etc

Because it's not that simple. If you're too old, for example. Or if you've used a 2nd redshirt, for example.
None of which is complicated or complex.

Anonymous wrote:I think folks making this more complex than it is. Everyone on a roster in Sep and after would get 5 years to play 5 seasons.

If your a 2025 who just redshirted, you still get 4 more years.

If your a 2925 who did not redshirt, you still get 4 more years etc

Anonymous wrote:

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)

The classes will for sure be smaller. No idea how anyone can proximate how much exactly, or what the above numbers are supposed to mean.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t previously realize that this legislation would only apply to kids coming out of high school after it’s passed and not to current college players. It would seem like it will mostly adversely hurt 2029 and younger as college coaches have to start making roster decisions based on juniors and seniors who may play the 5th year.

It won’t apply to kids who just graduated college but it applies to all current college players enrolled in fall.

So it affects every 2027 and younger and obviously 2028 most since this is their recruiting year.

I think you won’t see a ton of players doing a 5th year, only starters or even top starters.

Some may go into portal for the 5th year just to see interest, but not be picked up.

According to an AI search this isn’t correct. Students in college or signed commitments to colleges already have eligibility locked in. This change would apply to future kids going to college or signing commitments after the date it goes into effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t previously realize that this legislation would only apply to kids coming out of high school after it’s passed and not to current college players. It would seem like it will mostly adversely hurt 2029 and younger as college coaches have to start making roster decisions based on juniors and seniors who may play the 5th year.

It won’t apply to kids who just graduated college but it applies to all current college players enrolled in fall.

So it affects every 2027 and younger and obviously 2028 most since this is their recruiting year.

I think you won’t see a ton of players doing a 5th year, only starters or even top starters.

Some may go into portal for the 5th year just to see interest, but not be picked up.

According to an AI search this isn’t correct. Students in college or signed commitments to colleges already have eligibility locked in. This change would apply to future kids going to college or signing commitments after the date it goes into effect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t previously realize that this legislation would only apply to kids coming out of high school after it’s passed and not to current college players. It would seem like it will mostly adversely hurt 2029 and younger as college coaches have to start making roster decisions based on juniors and seniors who may play the 5th year.

It won’t apply to kids who just graduated college but it applies to all current college players enrolled in fall.

So it affects every 2027 and younger and obviously 2028 most since this is their recruiting year.

I think you won’t see a ton of players doing a 5th year, only starters or even top starters.

Some may go into portal for the 5th year just to see interest, but not be picked up.

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: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:I didn’t previously realize that this legislation would only apply to kids coming out of high school after it’s passed and not to current college players. It would seem like it will mostly adversely hurt 2029 and younger as college coaches have to start making roster decisions based on juniors and seniors who may play the 5th year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In order to definitively address the confusion:

“The Division I Cabinet on Friday continued to discuss elements of the age-based eligibility model that could be considered for a formal vote as early as the end of this month.

The Cabinet modified the age-based model to start a student-athlete's eligibility clock upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs earlier. This adjustment would be applicable for all sports if the model is adopted.”

Looks like some of us will be paying for 5 years

There was no way the clock was ever going to start upon high graduation.

Anonymous wrote:In order to definitively address the confusion:

“The Division I Cabinet on Friday continued to discuss elements of the age-based eligibility model that could be considered for a formal vote as early as the end of this month.

The Cabinet modified the age-based model to start a student-athlete's eligibility clock upon initial full-time enrollment in college or at the beginning of the academic year following their 19th birthday, whichever occurs earlier. This adjustment would be applicable for all sports if the model is adopted.”

Looks like some of us will be paying for 5 years