Predict The Next Major Universities To Get DI Lax Programs

[old salt]

I really think that the football bubble will burst soon, due to the big boys growing even bigger with NIL. ANd creating the gap where some schools cant compete.
I could see a lot of mid major football programs folding and it might create some room for new sports on the men's side.

The transfer portal, without having to sit out a year, is like unrestricted free agency.

The AAC is poaching a lot of P5 players.
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footb ... erence=AAC

[coda]

I really think that the football bubble will burst soon, due to the big boys growing even bigger with NIL. ANd creating the gap where some schools cant compete.
I could see a lot of mid major football programs folding and it might create some room for new sports on the men's side.

The transfer portal, without having to sit out a year, is like unrestricted free agency.

The AAC is poaching a lot of P5 players.
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footb ... erence=AAC

Not sure I would say that is the AAC poaching. Players that move up tend to have much more impact than players that move down.

[Farfromgeneva]

I really think that the football bubble will burst soon, due to the big boys growing even bigger with NIL. ANd creating the gap where some schools cant compete.
I could see a lot of mid major football programs folding and it might create some room for new sports on the men's side.

The transfer portal, without having to sit out a year, is like unrestricted free agency.

The AAC is poaching a lot of P5 players.
https://247sports.com/Season/2023-Footb ... erence=AAC

Not sure I would say that is the AAC poaching. Players that move up tend to have much more impact than players that move down.

Nobody wants to wait to start anymore.

[wgdsr]

Northwestern - Already a strong woman's program
Florida St. - Tried before a number of times - ACC
NC State - Call it the Stan Cockerton redemption ACC

Further down the road

Stanford- Solid club program for over a half a century now in the ACC
USC UCLA - Big 10 arrivals also with solid club programs

probably have to cross off fsu. women, no men's and on the heels of title ix violation threats.

[Gorilla Fan]

FSU adding women's:

https://www.usalaxmagazine.com/college/ ... demic-year

[ggait]

Come on guys.

In the past 45 years, how many P5 schools have added D1 mlax? ND, Michigan, Utah are all I can think of. Subtract MSU, NC State and BC and you get zero net growth for over four decades.

So if you set the under/over at one new P5 mlax team in the next 10 years, I'm taking the under.

No college AD these days is interested in adding new non-revenue sports. More likely they are going to be forced to cuts non-revenue sports. Especially male non-revenue sports.

Costs and T9 makes it virtually impossible to do unless a donor drops $15 million into the athletic department.

But I'll play. I'd give you a 5% chance that USC could start an mlax team. Now that they are in a lacrosse conference now and have a lot of B10 cash coming their way. But the AD is more likely to spend that money on more flat screens for the football locker room than fritter it away on non-revenue mlax.

[ggait]

why is BU able to afford varsity lax , but not BC?

What you have to pay for is female roster spots to offset the male roster spots.

BC has high male headcount sports like football, baseball, mens ice hockey, skiing, soccer, tennis, skiing and fencing (25 spots!!). Shutter 3 or 4 of those and then you'd have space for mlax. Instead, BC chose to shutter mlax in 2002. It ain't coming back.

BU does not have baseball, football, skiing, fencing or sailing. That's why they have space for mlax. They shuttered football in 1997.

#math

[ggait]

Always a fun conversation but one that comes up every year. It is usually not budget that is preventing many of these schools from adding lax. I believe that even if they withdrew from the NCAA and started a self-governing football entity they would still be constrained by Title IX if they receive government funding (which even private schools do). It would of course be fun to see Georgia or Clemson with D1 lax.

Title 9 IS the budget. That's why these discussions are so freaking brain dead.

Because at many schools (certainly most P5 schools), you would probably have to add 3 or 4 new female teams to add 45 new roster spots for mlax. So "adding mlax" really equals "adding four or five new teams." When you add up the costs of facilities, scholarships and coaches, a new non-revenue mlax team is the literally the last thing an AD would ever choose to do.

Let's take Georgia. UGA's undergraduate enrollment is only 41% male. UGA currently has 347 male varsity roster spots and 316 female. That's 52% male. Title 9 turrible.

If UGA wanted to add 45 new additional male roster spots for mlax, that would add to 392 male rosters. So UGA would also have to add 248 (yikes!!!) new female roster spots. 316+248 = 564 female rosters. 392 male / 564 female is 41/59 proportional.

So the UGA athletic program would have to increase from the current 663 rosters to 956. It is more likely that the UGA AD will be hit by an asteroid than he will be adding mlax. Sheesh.

#math
#legalcompliance
#givemeabreakfellas

[ggait]

UMich was already proportional under T9 pre-lacrosse. High male enrollment due to big engineering programs. So they were able to make it work by adding two new teams (mlax and wlax). BOTH of which which were paid for by multi-millions of donations.

Utah was also proportional with high male enrollment pre-lax. So they could add mlax if (i) they also added womens beach volleyball as a new varsity sport and (ii) got a $16 million donation from the JetBlue founder.

Those are best case scenarios. Since few P5 schools are currently T9 proportional.

So...I'm sayin'...there's a chance!!!!!!

[wgdsr]

Always a fun conversation but one that comes up every year. It is usually not budget that is preventing many of these schools from adding lax. I believe that even if they withdrew from the NCAA and started a self-governing football entity they would still be constrained by Title IX if they receive government funding (which even private schools do). It would of course be fun to see Georgia or Clemson with D1 lax.

Title 9 IS the budget. That's why these discussions are so freaking brain dead.

Because at many schools (certainly most P5 schools), you would probably have to add 3 or 4 new female teams to add 45 new roster spots for mlax. So "adding mlax" really equals "adding four or five new teams." When you add up the costs of facilities, scholarships and coaches, a new non-revenue mlax team is the literally the last thing an AD would ever choose to do.

Let's take Georgia. UGA's undergraduate enrollment is only 41% male. UGA currently has 347 male varsity roster spots and 316 female. That's 52% male. Title 9 turrible.

If UGA wanted to add 45 new additional male roster spots for mlax, that would add to 392 male rosters. So UGA would also have to add 248 (yikes!!!) new female roster spots. 316+248 = 564 female rosters. 392 male / 564 female is 41/59 proportional.

So the UGA athletic program would have to increase from the current 663 rosters to 956. It is more likely that the UGA AD will be hit by an asteroid than he will be adding mlax. Sheesh.

#math
#legalcompliance
#givemeabreakfellas

3 prongs. many schools sit on 2 of them that aren't proportional. this crazy scenario is not accurate. when a school can't point to #2 or #3 under threat of lawsuit or even annual review, you get fsu.

[44WeWantMore]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

[Farfromgeneva]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

Agreed though the GC is supposed to outline risks and different options and let the business decision makers determine the path forward. The ones who have a spine and any sense of leadership anyways.

[wgdsr]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

of course every school is it's own situation and own decision makers. whether they have a process is debatable.
https://sportslitigationalert.com/flori ... legations/

there's zero evidence that they can't get by with having added a women's sport(s) recently or a women's sport concurrently with a men's team if not as recently. or if a yugh lineup of women's sports is offered, or if they're potentially filling needs/wants on campus. title ix isn't meant to force both sides to do something. & it's not all about proportionality or they wouldn't have written and adopted the law as they have.

[runrussellrun]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

of course every school is it's own situation and own decision makers. whether they have a process is debatable.
https://sportslitigationalert.com/flori ... legations/

there's zero evidence that they can't get by with having added a women's sport(s) recently or a women's sport concurrently with a men's team if not as recently. or if a yugh lineup of women's sports is offered, or if they're potentially filling needs/wants on campus. title ix isn't meant to force both sides to do something. & it's not all about proportionality or they wouldn't have written and adopted the law as they have.

NO..........group or person (s)......has ever engaged in a title 9 lawsuit, for starting a program. Fact.

(think we wrote this sentence 10 years ago....still applies )

We mean, why hasn't the Feds and the legal beagles, gone after Boston College ?

exactly

[ggait]

Prong 3 is total meaningless bull shirt for D1 P5 schools. As a practical matter, it does not exist at those kinds of schools. Period.

Please show me facts/data of that type school adding a new men’s sport who did not rely on proportionality math.

To back up my case, I’ll cite you:

ASU mens ice hockey:

Arizona State University is apparently skating up to the big time.

According to a report at Fox Sports Arizona, the Sun Devils will be the latest school to join the NCAA Division I men's ice hockey ranks, thanks to a $32 million donation from private supporters led by Milwaukee businessman and ASU alumnus Don Mullett.

ASU will become the 60th NCAA Division I men's hockey program, and the first in the state since Northern Arizona University dropped its Division I team in 1986. Greg Adams played 15 years in the NHL after a two-year stint with the NAU Lumberjacks. ASU will also have to add a women's athletics program such as lacrosse to satisfy Title IX issues.

PSU mens ice hockey:

University Park, Pa. - In conjunction with the largest private gift in the history of The Pennsylvania State University to fund a state-of-the-art, multi-purpose arena, Penn State will establish NCAA Division I men's and women's ice hockey programs. The two teams are slated to begin competition in the 2012-13 season.

Utah mens lacrosse:

Men's lacrosse is the U.'s first completely new NCAA sport since women's soccer was added back in 1995. The Utes began fielding a beach volleyball team this past spring, drawing its members and coaches from the existing volleyball program. With the addition of men's lacrosse, Utah will support 20 total NCAA sports—eight men's and 12 women's.

Michigan lacrosse:

On May 25, 2011, Michigan officially promoted its women's lacrosse team to varsity status, the same day that the school's varsity men's program was announced.

So what evidence do the prong 3 pettifoggers have? Any at all?

I’ll wait.

[Farfromgeneva]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

of course every school is it's own situation and own decision makers. whether they have a process is debatable.
https://sportslitigationalert.com/flori ... legations/

there's zero evidence that they can't get by with having added a women's sport(s) recently or a women's sport concurrently with a men's team if not as recently. or if a yugh lineup of women's sports is offered, or if they're potentially filling needs/wants on campus. title ix isn't meant to force both sides to do something. & it's not all about proportionality or they wouldn't have written and adopted the law as they have.

Yes but what institution, insular and protective of their endowment, would be so reckless. It’s upside downside. Not worth the risk. Especially in a place where leadership is so devoid in general.

[Farfromgeneva]

Prong 3 is total meaningless bull shirt for D1 P5 schools. As a practical matter, it does not exist at those kinds of schools. Period.

Please show me facts/data of that type school adding a new men’s sport who did not rely on proportionality math.

To back up my case, I’ll cite you:

ASU mens ice hockey:

Arizona State University is apparently skating up to the big time.

According to a report at Fox Sports Arizona, the Sun Devils will be the latest school to join the NCAA Division I men's ice hockey ranks, thanks to a $32 million donation from private supporters led by Milwaukee businessman and ASU alumnus Don Mullett.

ASU will become the 60th NCAA Division I men's hockey program, and the first in the state since Northern Arizona University dropped its Division I team in 1986. Greg Adams played 15 years in the NHL after a two-year stint with the NAU Lumberjacks. ASU will also have to add a women's athletics program such as lacrosse to satisfy Title IX issues.

PSU mens ice hockey:

University Park, Pa. - In conjunction with the largest private gift in the history of The Pennsylvania State University to fund a state-of-the-art, multi-purpose arena, Penn State will establish NCAA Division I men's and women's ice hockey programs. The two teams are slated to begin competition in the 2012-13 season.

Utah mens lacrosse:

Men's lacrosse is the U.'s first completely new NCAA sport since women's soccer was added back in 1995. The Utes began fielding a beach volleyball team this past spring, drawing its members and coaches from the existing volleyball program. With the addition of men's lacrosse, Utah will support 20 total NCAA sports—eight men's and 12 women's.

Michigan lacrosse:

On May 25, 2011, Michigan officially promoted its women's lacrosse team to varsity status, the same day that the school's varsity men's program was announced.

So what evidence do the prong 3 pettifoggers have? Any at all?

I’ll wait.

I may not disagree but absence of evidence has never meant evidence of absence. If all GCs give the same advice, higher ed is the same culturally feckless, leadership lacking crowd think then you wouldn’t likely see evidence. And there may be good reason but that doesn’t make any case a slam dunk. Just unknown.

The better argument is the large universities with revenue gap issues and massive debts don’t have the balls to try and wouldn’t likely put their beliefs in front of that risk. Stressors only build resiliency up the point It doesn’t kill the actor. If existential risk is a reasonable potential risk it’s unlikely anyone would ever challenge it. But that doesn’t make the other side interpretation correct. It just means the system, like any in political economics, exists to protect itself at the expense of its original missions. Just like, church, govt, schools, AOH branches, etc.

[wgdsr]

I posted earlier that many D-III schools are at prong 3 (certainly JHU was in my day), but I think that in the P5 (which is what I take "Major Universities" to mean) no GC could make that claim with a straight face. With 20,000 students, there could never be enough opportunities for everybody.

And in D-III, even if you found an administrator opposed to quotas, no risk-averse GC would want to rely on prong 3.

of course every school is it's own situation and own decision makers. whether they have a process is debatable.
https://sportslitigationalert.com/flori ... legations/

there's zero evidence that they can't get by with having added a women's sport(s) recently or a women's sport concurrently with a men's team if not as recently. or if a yugh lineup of women's sports is offered, or if they're potentially filling needs/wants on campus. title ix isn't meant to force both sides to do something. & it's not all about proportionality or they wouldn't have written and adopted the law as they have.

Yes but what institution, insular and protective of their endowment, would be so reckless. It’s upside downside. Not worth the risk. Especially in a place where leadership is so devoid in general.

ggait's original point i'm commenting on was that you would have to add 100s and 100s of women's athletes to add a men's sport. that is simply not correct, nor is it correct that all the examples out there show it to be true. the opposite is the case, in fact.

and again the law itself and its adoption shows that proportionality is not the only driver of the stasis that we're in or when changes occur. as well as commentary on it from the experts.

as far as motives, i'm on record that very few athletic directors want more sports to handle. i'll speculate that it's laziness and selfishness well past any risk aversion.

[ggait]

Completely wrong.

If you are not proportional, you have to show you have a long and continuing track record of expanding opportunities for the under represented gender. That is how Georgia keeps the feds from shutting down the existing over represented gender teams. Like football.

Adding opportunities for the already over represented gender is not that. Which is what a new mlax team would be.

You got real world evidence for your analysis? If so, let’s see it. Otherwise, just admit you have no evidence.

[wgdsr]

Prong 3 is total meaningless bull shirt for D1 P5 schools. As a practical matter, it does not exist at those kinds of schools. Period.

Please show me facts/data of that type school adding a new men’s sport who did not rely on proportionality math.

To back up my case, I’ll cite you:

ASU mens ice hockey:

Arizona State University is apparently skating up to the big time.

According to a report at Fox Sports Arizona, the Sun Devils will be the latest school to join the NCAA Division I men's ice hockey ranks, thanks to a $32 million donation from private supporters led by Milwaukee businessman and ASU alumnus Don Mullett.

ASU will become the 60th NCAA Division I men's hockey program, and the first in the state since Northern Arizona University dropped its Division I team in 1986. Greg Adams played 15 years in the NHL after a two-year stint with the NAU Lumberjacks. ASU will also have to add a women's athletics program such as lacrosse to satisfy Title IX issues.

PSU mens ice hockey:

University Park, Pa. - In conjunction with the largest private gift in the history of The Pennsylvania State University to fund a state-of-the-art, multi-purpose arena, Penn State will establish NCAA Division I men's and women's ice hockey programs. The two teams are slated to begin competition in the 2012-13 season.

Utah mens lacrosse:

Men's lacrosse is the U.'s first completely new NCAA sport since women's soccer was added back in 1995. The Utes began fielding a beach volleyball team this past spring, drawing its members and coaches from the existing volleyball program. With the addition of men's lacrosse, Utah will support 20 total NCAA sports—eight men's and 12 women's.

Michigan lacrosse:

On May 25, 2011, Michigan officially promoted its women's lacrosse team to varsity status, the same day that the school's varsity men's program was announced.

So what evidence do the prong 3 pettifoggers have? Any at all?

I’ll wait.

so they all didn't add 100s of athletes, but rather showed an expansion of opportunities to women by adding one sport.