The 2025 NCAA Men’s Lacrosse Championship has reached the quarterfinals and the four contests will take place between Saturday, May 17 and Sunday May 18 at James M. Shuart Stadium in Hempstead, N.Y. and Navy-Marine Corps Memorial Stadium in Annapolis, Md.

The quarterfinals are scheduled to start at noon EDT and will be broadcast on ESPNU. Fans looking to watch can do so for free by using DirecTV Stream , which offers a free trial, or FuboTV , which also offers a free trial as well as up to $25 off your first month. SlingTV doesn’t offer a free trial but has promotional offers available for streaming the game. You can stream ESPN+ on your phone, tablet, smart TV or gaming console for $11.99/month or bundle with Disney+ and Hulu for just $16.99 per month.

The winners of the quarterfinal matchups this weekend will reconvene at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass. on Memorial Day Weekend for the semifinals and national championship.

Betting: Check out our MA sports betting guide , where you can learn basic terminology, definitions and how to read odds for those interested in learning how to bet in Massachusetts.

DirecTV Stream offers practically everything DirecTV provides, except for a remote and a streaming device to connect to your television. Sign up now and get three free months of premium channels including MAX , Paramount+ with SHOWTIME and Starz.

FuboTV is an internet television service that offers more than 200 channels across sports and entertainment including Paramount+ with SHOWTIME . From the UEFA Champions League to the WNBA to international tournaments ranging across sports, there’s plenty of options available on FuboTV, which offers a free trial and up to $25 off the first month for new customers.

Sling TV offers a variety of live programming ranging from news and sports and starting as low as $20 a month for your first month. Subscribers also get a month of DVR Plus free if they sign up now. Choose from a variety of sports packages without long-term contracts and with easy cancellation.

ESPN+ is a one-stop shop for content from almost every single sport. In addition to on-demand replays of games across all sports shown on the ESPN and Disney family of networks, there is also exclusive access to select college football games, NHL games, soccer matches, UFC programs and the entire 30 for 30 catalogue. Additionally, there is ESPN+ exclusive original programming like NFL Primetime, Dana White’s Contender Series and The Breakdown with Peyton and Belichick. You can stream ESPN+ on your phone, tablet, smart TV or gaming console for $11.99/month or bundle with Disney+ and Hulu for just $16.99 per month.

RELATED CONTENT:

The final arguments over the contentious issue of roster limits have been filed in the $2.8 billion NCAA antitrust settlement and it is once again up to a federal judge to determine the next move.

In the eyes of one attorney, the choice is simple. Either U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken signs off on the latest proposal or it’s on to a trial that would throw the college athletics into chaos for the foreseeable future.

“She made it very clear,” said attorney Jeffrey Kessler, who represented thousands of players in the case against the NCAA and the nation’s biggest conferences. “She said, ‘You have one chance to fix it.’ I believe we 100% fixed it. If she disagrees, we go to trial.”

Sent back to the bargaining table last month by Wilken, attorneys on both sides agreed to a proposal that would allow players who were cut due to the expected implementation of roster limits to regain spots on their previous teams or move to new ones; either way, they would not count against the newly implemented roster caps.

Athletes objecting to this solution argued that the damage has already been done when their spots were lost. They urged the judge to reject the proposal and Friday was the deadline for the latest round of filings. Wilken is expected to rule soon — perhaps by next week — on whether to accept the latest proposal or put the possibility of a trial that likely wouldn’t begin until at least next fall on the table.

“If they don’t appropriately deal with how they harmed the current students, I would be surprised if she approved it,” said Mike Rueda, who leads the sports and entertainment division at the law firm Withers. “That was her issue previously, that they prematurely took steps before the settlement was approved.”

One brief filed on behalf of athletes objecting to the solution spoke bluntly about that harm. It noted that “our firm has continued to receive emails and phone calls from class members and their parents telling us of student-athletes who would be harmed by the immediate implementation of roster limits. Many communications have included words like ‘unfair,’ ‘blindsided,’ ‘chaos,’ ‘harm,’ and ‘disservice.’”

In initially rejecting the roster-limits part of the settlement, Wilken suggested players be “grandfathered in” to their spots through the rest of their college careers.

The roster limits in the overall plan would cut the sizes of teams but would make everyone on those teams eligible for a full scholarship. In women’s swimming, for instance, this would eliminate up to 10 spots per team but could add as many as 16 scholarship opportunities.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys argue this is just one of many benefits that would come out of a settlement, the core of which is designed to allow schools to directly pay players for use of their name, image and likeness, while also offering around $2.8 billion in damages to players who attended before being able to fully partake in NIL.

They say their solution puts the thousands of athletes who could be harmed by roster caps — many of them walk-ons or partial-scholarship players — in no worse a situation than they were in before they were cut: They have a chance to compete for — but no guarantee they’ll earn — a roster spot that does not count against any prescribed limits from the settlement.

But the attorneys for the objectors wrote that they continue “to hear from many athletes and their families whose lives are being turned upside down as a result of the implementation of roster caps.”

— Players who were cut be restored to their previous team even if they had already transferred to another school.

— An arbitration system if there’s disagreement over whether a player was cut due to roster limits, which is forbidden under the new proposal, or for another reason.

— No release of claims for possible damages due to being cut as the schools prepared for a settlement they thought would be approved.

Kessler said he was certain the objectors wouldn’t agree to virtually anything the plaintiffs and defendants proposed.

“They say when you’re a hammer, you’re looking for a nail, and these are objectors, so they’re looking for things to keep objecting to,” he said. “We have solved this problem, and that’s the thing they should be recognizing.”