NCAA reorg imminent

[ggait]

Have the odds for expansion of DI lacrosse gone from extremely slim to possible contraction?
Does it make sense to carry the NCAA minimum number of teams, which I believe is 15, to control costs and travel concerns associated with these Super Conferences.

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

If forced to for compliance, they'll expand into a female high headcount sport -- rowing, wlax, beach volleyball, whatev. Although cutting male sports is more likely and easier.

So conference reorg will have ZERO impact on the chances of expansion in P5 D1 mlax. Because the chances were already about 0%. For the past 50 years you've got ND, Mich, Utah, right?

But I'll give you about a 0.001% chance that USC could add mlax in the next 15 years. Since they will soon have B10 $$$$$, and the B10 also has mlax. I'd also guess that there's a much higher chance USC would add mhockey. That's a B10 sport too and at least it brings in some dough.

[wgdsr]

Have the odds for expansion of DI lacrosse gone from extremely slim to possible contraction?
Does it make sense to carry the NCAA minimum number of teams, which I believe is 15, to control costs and travel concerns associated with these Super Conferences.

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

If forced to for compliance, they'll expand into a female high headcount sport -- rowing, wlax, beach volleyball, whatev. Although cutting male sports is more likely and easier.

So conference reorg will have ZERO impact on the chances of expansion in P5 D1 mlax. Because the chances were already about 0%. For the past 50 years you've got ND, Mich, Utah, right?

But I'll give you about a 0.001% chance that USC could add mlax in the next 15 years. Since they will soon have B10 $$$$$, and the B10 also has mlax. I'd also guess that there's a much higher chance USC would add mhockey. That's a B10 sport too and at least it brings in some dough.

meh. the line on a p5 school adding in the next decade is probably 1, if not a pick 'em. it's not off the board. 2 of those adds have come in the last decade.

money gets crazy enough and boo corrigan's still the a.d., nc state is a prime candidate for one.

[ggait]

Boo says boo to an mlax team.

59% of ncst roster spots are male. 50% male enrollment.

So Boo would have to add 2 or 3 new female teams to get the pro forma to work for 50 additional mlax heads. Or he’d have to cut 2 or 3 existing male teams.

Since he’s stuck in the low dollar ACC until 2036, I’d put the chances at 0.00%.

[wgdsr]

Boo says boo to an mlax team.

59% of ncst roster spots are male. 50% male enrollment.

So Boo would have to add 2 or 3 new female teams to get the pro forma to work for 50 additional mlax heads. Or he’d have to cut 2 or 3 existing male teams.

Since he’s stuck in the low dollar ACC until 2036, I’d put the chances at 0.00%.

michigan was in the exact same spot. how many women's sports did they add? might've been more than glax, dunno, but don't remember as it being some big add on.

then u said it won't happen again in our lifetimes and then there was utah. absolutes are too often fallible.

the acc $$ trend is up and to the right. cfp contract is gonna be cray. don't think we've heard the last about realignment for the next 13 years, espec in the acc.

and then there's the randos (like jetblue) that pop up. texas is gonna be a s&p 500 company probably soon. all it takes may be an oilman or phil knight to have a son/grandson they think can play. maybe smu can put some heads in beds if they sneak into acc.

there won't be a gold rush for new programs, but 1+ seems likely in a decade of swimming in money.

[wgdsr]

in other news, stanford has told the rest of the priceless pac 4 that they've told the acc they'd come with a greatly reduced rate or maybe even free for several years. plus condeleeza's been working the phones (as has g-dub for smu). berkeley probably can't afford too much of a blue light special.

bit surprised a week has gone by with no word, to me that signals a lot of horse trading going on.

[HooDat]

in other news, stanford has told the rest of the priceless pac 4 that they've told the acc they'd come with a greatly reduced rate or maybe even free for several years. plus condeleeza's been working the phones (as has g-dub for smu). berkeley probably can't afford too much of a blue light special.

bit surprised a week has gone by with no word, to me that signals a lot of horse trading going on.

That is some true political fire power....

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

ggait - I understand that this is true, and I would say that it is 100% due to Titel IX. D3 schools and the Ivy league love them some non-revenue sport. Those students represent a demographic the schools desire - disciplined, true amateurs, and future alumni with a far higher tendency to give money to the school.

The combination of Title IX and the distortion of the money from Football and Basket ball has a very harmful impact on D1 sports. Here is an interesting read on the difference between playing a sport because you love it and playing a sport as a job with performance to be MAXIMIZED.

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2023 ... corn-town/

If you are old enough to have played with straight sidewalls you have witnessed the (I think unfortunate) transformation of lacrosse into a game played purely for the joy of the game and the competition into a game played as a "job". I for one think it is unfortunate....

[ggait]

and then there's the randos (like jetblue) that pop up. texas is gonna be a s&p 500 company probably soon. all it takes may be an oilman or phil knight to have a son/grandson they think can play. maybe smu can put some heads in beds if they sneak into acc.

there won't be a gold rush for new programs, but 1+ seems likely in a decade of swimming in money.

WG -- With enough money, anything is possible. But how much money it would take matters a lot. And the math says mlax is never ever coming back to NCST.

If NCST added 45 male rosters, its T9 pro forma would go to 61.3% male roster spots for a school with 50.1% male undergrad enrollment. To make up for that NCST would have to add 160 new female roster spots. That is basically impossible math. Add wrowing (75) AND wlax (22) AND field hockey (29) you get only 137 heads. NCST already has all other high female headcount sports (soccer, softball, vball, gymnastics, track, swimming) sponsored by the ACC. So where could those remaining 23 female rosters and a fourth new female team possibly come from?

Utah (beach vball) and Mich (wlax) were able to add mlax while only adding one additional team. Their pre-mlax T9 numbers were way way way better than NCST's. And that was still expensive AF -- $16 million in Utah's case for two new teams. So FIVE new teams at NCST would cost what -- $35 million?

We might get another P5 D1 mlax team (my vote is USC) in the next 10-15 years. But it is certain that said team will not be NC State.

You really can't have an opinion about a particular school's chances unless you crunch the numbers.

#math

[mdk01]

in other news, stanford has told the rest of the priceless pac 4 that they've told the acc they'd come with a greatly reduced rate or maybe even free for several years. plus condeleeza's been working the phones (as has g-dub for smu). berkeley probably can't afford too much of a blue light special.

bit surprised a week has gone by with no word, to me that signals a lot of horse trading going on.

Stanford has also had a fairly serious club team for over 50 years and the $$ to cover expenses if they want to move up to ACC lacrosse. Just have to make the Title IX numbers work.

[wgdsr]

and then there's the randos (like jetblue) that pop up. texas is gonna be a s&p 500 company probably soon. all it takes may be an oilman or phil knight to have a son/grandson they think can play. maybe smu can put some heads in beds if they sneak into acc.

there won't be a gold rush for new programs, but 1+ seems likely in a decade of swimming in money.

WG -- With enough money, anything is possible. But how much money it would take matters a lot. And the math says mlax is never ever coming back to NCST.

If NCST added 45 male rosters, its T9 pro forma would go to 61.3% male roster spots for a school with 50.1% male undergrad enrollment. To make up for that NCST would have to add 160 new female roster spots. That is basically impossible math. Add wrowing (75) AND wlax (22) AND field hockey (29) you get only 137 heads. NCST already has all other high female headcount sports (soccer, softball, vball, gymnastics, track, swimming) sponsored by the ACC. So where could those remaining 23 female rosters and a fourth new female team possibly come from?

Utah (beach vball) and Mich (wlax) were able to add mlax while only adding one additional team. Their pre-mlax T9 numbers were way way way better than NCST's. And that was still expensive AF -- $16 million in Utah's case for two new teams. So FIVE new teams at NCST would cost what -- $35 million?

We might get another P5 D1 mlax team (my vote is USC) in the next 10-15 years. But it is certain that said team will not be NC State.

You really can't have an opinion about a particular school's chances unless you crunch the numbers.

#math

before i speak out of turn here, are u a title ix atty or someone that's consulted for compliance offices?

[ggait]

WG -- Lawyer, but don't practice in this area. But (as posters on here know) have hobby studied why D1 mlax is so hosed when it comes to expansion.

We all know the basics on this. There is a three prong test, but one prong (accomodation of interests) is just not relied upon by schools. So that one, as a practical matter, does not exist.

The remaining two tests are (i) proportionality or (ii) increasing opportunities for females and making progress towards proportionality. Under (ii), a school does not have to be proportional today. So long as the school has a consistent track record of increasing female opportunities in the direction of proportionality.

Since NCST is way below proportionality, Boo's university counsel are not going to let him add a new slug of mlax roster spots all by itself.

To illustrate the point, here's some math.

Utah's undergrad enrollment is 51.6% male. 51% of their varsity roster spots are male. Proportional AFTER adding mlax and beach volleyball.

NCST today is 50.1% male undergrad enrollment. 59% of their current varsity roster spots are male. I'd be interested in hearing a fact/law/dollar/math-based proposal for how they could legally add 45 additional male roster spots for an mlax team. I'm not seeing it, unless they want to eliminate a bunch of existing mens teams to create space for mlax.

FYI, all the data I am using for all the schools is on the USDOEd website and based on the required reports the schools have to file annually with the feds.

Have at it. Tell me what I am missing.

[old salt]

in other news, stanford has told the rest of the priceless pac 4 that they've told the acc they'd come with a greatly reduced rate or maybe even free for several years. plus condeleeza's been working the phones (as has g-dub for smu). berkeley probably can't afford too much of a blue light special.

bit surprised a week has gone by with no word, to me that signals a lot of horse trading going on.

That is some true political fire power....

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

ggait - I understand that this is true, and I would say that it is 100% due to Titel IX. D3 schools and the Ivy league love them some non-revenue sport. Those students represent a demographic the schools desire - disciplined, true amateurs, and future alumni with a far higher tendency to give money to the school.

The combination of Title IX and the distortion of the money from Football and Basket ball has a very harmful impact on D1 sports. Here is an interesting read on the difference between playing a sport because you love it and playing a sport as a job with performance to be MAXIMIZED.

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2023 ... corn-town/

If you are old enough to have played with straight sidewalls you have witnessed the (I think unfortunate) transformation of lacrosse into a game played purely for the joy of the game and the competition into a game played as a "job". I for one think it is unfortunate....

agree ...also if old enough to have played with a catgut sidewall.

[HooDat]

agree ...also if old enough to have played with a catgut sidewall.

Just missed that, but my HS coach still carried one.

[OCanada]

in other news, stanford has told the rest of the priceless pac 4 that they've told the acc they'd come with a greatly reduced rate or maybe even free for several years. plus condeleeza's been working the phones (as has g-dub for smu). berkeley probably can't afford too much of a blue light special.

bit surprised a week has gone by with no word, to me that signals a lot of horse trading going on.

That is some true political fire power....

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

ggait - I understand that this is true, and I would say that it is 100% due to Titel IX. D3 schools and the Ivy league love them some non-revenue sport. Those students represent a demographic the schools desire - disciplined, true amateurs, and future alumni with a far higher tendency to give money to the school.

The combination of Title IX and the distortion of the money from Football and Basket ball has a very harmful impact on D1 sports. Here is an interesting read on the difference between playing a sport because you love it and playing a sport as a job with performance to be MAXIMIZED.

https://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2023 ... corn-town/

If you are old enough to have played with straight sidewalls you have witnessed the (I think unfortunate) transformation of lacrosse into a game played purely for the joy of the game and the competition into a game played as a "job". I for one think it is unfortunate....

agree ...also if old enough to have played with a catgut sidewall.

Does it follow that all the women who can now play D-1 sports are therefore harmful to D-1 sports?

[runrussellrun]

Have the odds for expansion of DI lacrosse gone from extremely slim to possible contraction?
Does it make sense to carry the NCAA minimum number of teams, which I believe is 15, to control costs and travel concerns associated with these Super Conferences.

No P5 AD wants to expand into any new non-revenue sport at his/her school. None, nada, zero. Female or male. TBH, most would cut many of their existing non-revenue sports if they could. It has been that way for many decades.

If forced to for compliance, they'll expand into a female high headcount sport -- rowing, wlax, beach volleyball, whatev. Although cutting male sports is more likely and easier.

So conference reorg will have ZERO impact on the chances of expansion in P5 D1 mlax. Because the chances were already about 0%. For the past 50 years you've got ND, Mich, Utah, right?

But I'll give you about a 0.001% chance that USC could add mlax in the next 15 years. Since they will soon have B10 $$$$$, and the B10 also has mlax. I'd also guess that there's a much higher chance USC would add mhockey. That's a B10 sport too and at least it brings in some dough.

Good geezbus...........revenue?

And all this time, we thought HIGHER ed filed NON profit 990 tax forms.

All this talk of "revenue"

But....yes, way better to pay coaches MILLIONS.....

Pretty sure I would win a lawsuit, title 9 style, based on the "equal" opportunity salary discrepancy.

college Club lacrosse is a thing of awesomeness. ......

[OCanada]

My sister was CFO at a major university and athletic power. Her observation not long ago was the 990s and other cinsncial statements paint a picture a bit moe optimistic than it really is.

[Farfromgeneva]

My sister was CFO at a major university and athletic power. Her observation not long ago was the 990s and other cinsncial statements paint a picture a bit moe optimistic than it really is.

Ya think? As if it’s only creative public companies and Wall Street that plays with gaap and makes adjustments wherever they can. The divergence from reality and presentation is getting worse.

[OCanada]

Just a passing thought

[OCanada]

Origins

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/co ... rcna101266

[Essexfenwick]

Super happy with UMD administration monetizing it’s location advantage instead of sharing its money with the old ACC members that made our “Rival” to be Pitt. The institution really has foresight and intelligence regarding the big picture over emotion.

[wgdsr]

Super happy with UMD administration monetizing it’s location advantage instead of sharing its money with the old ACC members that made our “Rival” to be Pitt. The institution really has foresight and intelligence regarding the big picture over emotion.

maryland brought in a paltry $107 million last year and i'm assuming still has a s***load of debt. they weren't sharing "their money" with anyone.