Eligibility Logic

[JoeMac]

Can anyone explain to me the logic in making grad students ineligible if they go to a grad school different than their undergrad? even if they never used any eligibility as an undergrad? Is there a way around this ineligibilty rule? If anyone has particular insight into this please feel free to personal message me. Thanks

[monkeylax]

Good luck! I hope someone has the cajones to step up to the plate again. I know this topic has been beaten to a pulp, and if you had previous threads to read you would understand, but alas, those threads are floating in cyber purgatory wondering for eternity.
Oh yeah, Grad students must also take a course load of 12 hours, ouch. My advice is to play for a post-collegiate men's club team. It will save you a huge headache.

[Mike Messina]

I would love to change this rule also as Pitt has almost as big a graduate program as it does an undergraduate program. I think the rules were developed based on a basic translation of the NCAA rules. While the NCAA carries the same rule, it allows for many exceptions that i guess were not also included in the USLIA rules. Just a guess though...

[MackLax]

I was allowed by the NCAA eligibility bylaws to participate in varsity lacrosse at a different graduate institution than my undergrad school, but the USLIA would not allow me to do so prior to that. I had significant aspirations of playing in the USLIA, but in retrospect, I am very happy it worked out this way.

monkeylax, while there are two great post-collegiate organizations in the ALL and USCLA that boast impressive talent and players who have "been there" at the highest levels, post-collegiate lacrosse inherently has a less competitive element than varsity collegiate lacrosse offers. When I use the word "competitive" I am talking more about passion and team cohesion than pure talent, which in several cases talent is far superior in post-collegiate compared to college lacrosse. Compare it to the air around a summer tournament game at Placid or such, and then in a heated conference rivalry in college lacrosse. Two very differrent atmospheres of completely different nature. Don't get me wrong, they (post-collegiate) play some great lacrosse and all play hard but they leave it on the field after the last whistle, and that is hard to do when you are passionate about the game and want to be the best you can be at it. Also, a team will not be the best it can be if it does not practice or only practices one day a week which is what those organizations do. These are all the reasons I wanted to still play collegiately as a graduate student.

Bottom line: There is nothing like putting on your school's game jersey. Nothing. Even ask MLL players.

[Gregg Pathiakis]

Can anyone explain to me the logic in making grad students ineligible if they go to a grad school different than their undergrad? even if they never used any eligibility as an undergrad? Is there a way around this ineligibilty rule? If anyone has particular insight into this please feel free to personal message me. Thanks

I know one of the leading issues with allowing people to do this is a D1 player from a powerful lacrosse school then doing his post-grad at an MDIA school. There are other reasons, this is just the one brought up most often.

[John Paul]

A couple of people in BOD meetings have brought up the D1 transfer issue, but that's not the reason the board has continued to emphasize this rule. To my mind, I could care less if a D1 all-american with eligibility left plays for a year in the MDIA if he's attending grad school. I think that would be great for our league. One guy wouldn't make a huge difference, and it would bring some welcome attention. It would happen pretty rarely.

The main reason this rule is enforced is compliance. We do not have the resources to track eligibility of players who started their eligibility outside the MDIA. It's actually a bit easier to do this if a player played varsity, but it's very difficult, if not impossible, if he played some other level of club - which often has non-existent records and inconsistent participation levels. Even for the varsity guys, it's another level of compliance we simply don't have resources for. It's technically not allowed in the NCAA either, but they have a "one time transfer" rule that allows players in that position (or their teams, more likely) to apply for permission. Our relatively simple eligibility process, which is technically run by one volunteer IA coach who also has a full time job and a family, is overwhelmed as it is. We are trying to focus on improving that process so it's consistent, accurate and responsive. When we get to the point where we have full-time staff running some of our operations, which is coming eventually, you may start to see changes in things like this - if it's philosophically consistent with our mission.

Every league, at every level, has people left out because of rules that some perceive as illogical. The NCAA is certainly guilty of that in many cases. We have a good group of leaders, who represent a wide range of experience and involvement, on our Board. We understand both sides of this issue. As always, the best way to create changes is to get involved at your conference level. Every conference is looking for quality individuals who can be an asset to their administration, especially if they are non-coaches who can devote a bit more commitment. If you can't get involved, then lobby for your position with peers (other players or coaches) and convince your conference leaders that the majority of his constituents want to see the changes you're pushing. If he's good, he'll then put together a good plan that will make the changes workable (language for the changes, how to administer, etc.) and lobby other BOD members to get it done.