Utah

[ggait]

SLC is a really nice town. And it is hands down the #1 city to live in for skiing. But D1 college mlax coaches and players don't ski much or at all. Since ski season is lax season.

From the perspective of lax coaches and players, Utah/SLC is just such an extreme outlier. Maybe even more nutty than ASU starting an ice hockey team. And it seems unlikely to change. As the prospects for D1 mlax expansion in the Pac 12, WCC, MWC etc. schools are non-existent. The west is MCLA country.

With enough resources and institutional support, anything is possible. Utah started with a very strong donor commitment. But that now is being called into question. Who knows if that is true, but something has to be up with Holman's odd departure.

Bottom line, starting up a D1 mlax program at Utah didn't make a whole lot of sense. So unless there's very strong continuing financial/institutional support, you'd think a wither/die scenario is more likely than flourishing. Very easy to see a new AD in today's P5 environment deciding mlax is not a core portfolio asset for the Utes.

I'm sure any coaching candidates are asking those questions.

[MDlaxfan76]

And we're all wondering what the answers are!

[Farfromgeneva]

They arguably started out a lot better than Michigan.

[ggait]

They arguably started out a lot better than Michigan.

True.

But which program is going to be more sustainable? Which is what I'd care about as a coach candidate.

Michigan is a Big 10 school that plays in the Big 10 lacrosse conference. Utah is a Pac 12 school playing mlax (a sport which no other Pac 12 school will likely ever have) in the Atlantic Sun lacrosse conference....

DU can pull off the Big East thing because DU has had mlax for decades, has long had a Canadian pipeline for hockey and lax, has a HOF coach, has a national championship, and has a Directors Cup winning non-P5 athletic department that focuses on niche-ey non-football sports -- ice hockey, skiing, lacrosse, soccer, gymnastics.

Except for the Jet Blue checkbook, it is hard to see why D1 mlax at Utah exists.

[Farfromgeneva]

I would submit Munro already had them on the map well before Tierney and the title. They looked decent in that first round loss to MD mid 2000s with the kid who had the Eastern European or Russian name I’m blanking on now.

But the rest of your point is valid other than to point to HPU, Richmond and pre Tierney Denver. It can be built into something humping around ten top 20 w/o a Tierney, title or major conference. I don’t discount the proximity to growing west coast HS either. Stan Ross had Butler bumping around the top 20 a bit before they dropped it altogether in 2005.

[Sidelinehorn!]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

[HopFan16]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

I said I didn't buy what you claimed that the funding "didn't come through to pay the coaches," and I still don't. That's not what happened. You made it sound like they literally couldn't pay the coaches. Again—not what happened here. Of course it's possible and quite likely that the new staff gets paid less than the old one. That's different from funding "not coming through." Recruiting was also very much a factor here.

[ggait]

I would submit Munro already had them on the map well before Tierney and the title.

For sure.

I don't think Tierney would have been nearly as successful if DU wasn't already a well established program. No way he even takes the job if it was a start up situation. DU lacrosse is an odd duck, but it does make some sense and work when you get into the details.

In a Pac-12 P5 environment, in contrast, the red-headed step-childness of Utah D1 mlax makes you wonder about the long term. And that isn't helped by an odd coach departure, and rumors that the Jet Blue money has gone away and the new AD is not pro-lax.

Red flags everywhere.

[ggait]

Stan Ross had Butler bumping around the top 20 a bit before they dropped it altogether in 2005.

You see the irony of your statement FFG?

"We were printing money!! Until we went bankrupt..."

[Sidelinehorn!]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

I said I didn't buy what you claimed that the funding "didn't come through to pay the coaches," and I still don't. That's not what happened. You made it sound like they literally couldn't pay the coaches. Again—not what happened here. Of course it's possible and quite likely that the new staff gets paid less than the old one. That's different from funding "not coming through." Recruiting was also very much a factor here.

That's not what the coaching staff told the kids...but ok

[Farfromgeneva]

Stan Ross had Butler bumping around the top 20 a bit before they dropped it altogether in 2005.

You see the irony of your statement FFG?

"We were printing money!! Until we went bankrupt..."

Well Butler is vastly different with only Basketball and no focus on football and not (then anyways now debateable) part of a major conference in any way.

Stan Ross could’ve had other HC gigs since too if he wanted so that risk of moving out and having to come back isn’t that large if you do your job well (same w Sheridan). My whole point is there’s no reason if your competitive and want to be a high level which I mean to be D1 HC you don’t turn down the offer if you allowed yourself to be considered in the first place.

It wasn’t a lack of funding however at Butler it was a concentration of resources into BB which obviously paid off with a couple of final fours subsequently (like less than 5yrs later) including the worst title game ever played in the history of college basketball against Duke.

[FMUBart]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

I said I didn't buy what you claimed that the funding "didn't come through to pay the coaches," and I still don't. That's not what happened. You made it sound like they literally couldn't pay the coaches. Again—not what happened here. Of course it's possible and quite likely that the new staff gets paid less than the old one. That's different from funding "not coming through." Recruiting was also very much a factor here.

Fact 1: Holman was allowed to resign vs fired
Fact 2: Airline money has dried up
Will be curious to see where new/additional $$$'s come from

[Farfromgeneva]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

I said I didn't buy what you claimed that the funding "didn't come through to pay the coaches," and I still don't. That's not what happened. You made it sound like they literally couldn't pay the coaches. Again—not what happened here. Of course it's possible and quite likely that the new staff gets paid less than the old one. That's different from funding "not coming through." Recruiting was also very much a factor here.

Fact 1: Holman was allowed to resign vs fired
Fact 2: Airline money has dried up
Will be curious to see where new/additional $$$'s come from

Thought the money came from an ABL specialty finance lender based in Fairfield Co?

[sipecoth]

I'm old enough to remember when the Hop know it all said it wasn't money related...would love to hear how he spins this....

I said I didn't buy what you claimed that the funding "didn't come through to pay the coaches," and I still don't. That's not what happened. You made it sound like they literally couldn't pay the coaches. Again—not what happened here. Of course it's possible and quite likely that the new staff gets paid less than the old one. That's different from funding "not coming through." Recruiting was also very much a factor here.

That's not what the coaching staff told the kids...but ok

Sideline, just to make sure I got this right...the Utah coaches told the players that they were leaving because they weren't going to get paid? If so, that would be very interesting.

[Sidelinehorn!]

Coaches had a zoom with the players saying the funding was not coming through...this is coming from parents of players on the team. If someone wants to correct this be my guest..but IDK why the parents would say that if it wasn't true...

[sipecoth]

Coaches had a zoom with the players saying the funding was not coming through...this is coming from parents of players on the team. If someone wants to correct this be my guest..but IDK why the parents would say that if it wasn't true...

Very, very interesting. Sounds like that zoom call definitely happened. What they meant by funding not coming through would be the real question. Either way, the new coach is going to have a real job on his hands if the players think the team is going away because of budgetary constraints.

[Farfromgeneva]

Coaches had a zoom with the players saying the funding was not coming through...this is coming from parents of players on the team. If someone wants to correct this be my guest..but IDK why the parents would say that if it wasn't true...

Very, very interesting. Sounds like that zoom call definitely happened. What they meant by funding not coming through would be the real question. Either way, the new coach is going to have a real job on his hands if the players think the team is going away because of budgetary constraints.

Something a head coach, even on the way out, should never do and may end why Holman is gone. I wouldn’t hire a guy that would pull that.

[LaxPundit07]

Coaches had a zoom with the players saying the funding was not coming through...this is coming from parents of players on the team. If someone wants to correct this be my guest..but IDK why the parents would say that if it wasn't true...

Very, very interesting. Sounds like that zoom call definitely happened. What they meant by funding not coming through would be the real question. Either way, the new coach is going to have a real job on his hands if the players think the team is going away because of budgetary constraints.

Something a head coach, even on the way out, should never do and may end why Holman is gone. I wouldn’t hire a guy that would pull that.

I agree. Especially if the coaching staff knew the program was continuing on. Talk about undermining the reputation and system there; those kids probably have little to no faith about their future there. I have doubts about that being verbatim what was said--even with my lack of faith in the former staff--I find that hard to believe.

[44WeWantMore]

Even if we had a recording (or at least a transcript), we do not know what precipitated it.
I have no reason to believe Holman is not a stand-up guy, and I know that loyalty goes both ways.

[10stone5]

So the original funder or funders of the move to DI
scaled back or withdrew completely.
Happens all the time in all areas.
What, did they think the money was going to last
forever, there was no plan B ?