New Programs

[LaxDadMax]

I just can't go by the thought that "more is better".

Are there enough quality individuals who are lacrosse coaches currently out there to fill the existing rolls? There are all sorts of posts on FanLax suggesting that a number of current coaches and assistant coaches are not very strong. Where is Austin Pey going to find a good coach? Is a mediocre coach and coaching staff going to make the game better for fans? Will they have a positive impact on the players?

Do schools add new curriculum/majors if they can't find good professors?

Will there be an extra 35 girls coming out of high school to fill the roster spots who are legit division one level players? I mean, a number of D1 programs are very thin on talent currently.

Maybe Duke is behind this new addition, someone else they can schedule for a "W" (I know this is mean, but couldn't resist).

I say all this as a Vanderbilt supporter who has been disappointed that they haven't had a stronger program the past 10 years. Maybe I am afraid that AP will become the best team in TN.

This discussion has been had here and the large majority on this board disagree with you. But I don’t. I have watched enough club the last few years to see you are correct. I don’t think “grow the game” has to mean let’s have more teams at the D1 level. You can grow the game and have D3 teams. I think there should be a place for all kids to play college sports, but not necessarily at the watering down the highest level in college. It’s the same reason why the NFL doesn’t add five more teams. It would make money, but water down the product. Plus less teams would mean more parity.

There is 75 D1 men teams and I think that’s a great number. I understand title nine is great. I have two daughters, but do we need 140 D1 teams? We know that a lot of the kids that are on those D1 teams would be better off playing D2 and mostly three D3. A friend of
Mine told me his daughter started her first d3 game yesterday. He was ecstatic. There’s nothing wrong with D3.

For a lot of sports, D1 is the peak of its level. There really isn’t a professional league in sports such as lacrosse. Yeah they have the AU and all that jazz, but that’s just for a few select women and it’s not the same game.

It’s in danger of becoming “travel sports like.” Years ago if you played travel sports you were the better players in any sport. It became a business and now there’s 300 travel teams in every sport. Go watch the 150th against the 179th ranked club team. You would turn away from that game in five minutes to go watch a YJ vs M&D game. Yet there were probably 5 -7 kids that are now d1 recruits in that game.

Like I said. Most people disagree here and that’s fine. This is just my opinion.

I see your point, but I think you may be taking it a bit too far.

9 years ago when my eldest daughter was playing at club in front of coaches, pretty much everyone on a top 15 club got recruited plus 60% of girls from clubs 16-40. Now it is 95% on top 15 teams, and 75% on teams 16-50.

There is a chart on another forum looking at the number of girls recruiting from teams outside the top 50 and pickings are pretty slim. And the girls who are recruited are generally from areas where their club in the best in a bad area. (like Michigan Triumph, NH Tomahawks, or Oregon Pride).

[LaxDadMax]

Not a new problem. Are a majority of girls in these programs Legit D1 players? Could say the same things about lots of other sports.

Fair point. But 140-75 is crazy.

That said the number of players who get meaningful game time is pretty much the same. Typcialy good women D1 teams plays 14 or 15 field players per game. Typical good D1 men's team plays 24-27.

[Relax77]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. If you can’t even compete with the lower 1/4 of the teams, you have no business being there. Lindenwood and Queens LeMoyne moved up but they were the tops in D2. That’s how it should be done.

[LaxDadMax]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. STETSON! At the risk of upsetting some parents, Darien high school can beat Gardner Webb. That’s not a knock on the girls that play there. Not every team should be allowed to have a D1 team if they can’t compete. There should be some type of criteria. No doubt not one of those girls had a good time getting trashed today.

Well one offers scholarships and one doesn't. Stetson also likely has all different types of funding that GW doesn't.

Should the game have been rescheduled? No. But adding more programs, even at low levels, means that GW could play an Austin Peay or Furman instead of a Stetson or Coastal Carolina.

Not sure how this is different than Louisiana Lafayette destroys Houston Baptist in a majority of sports. Adding teams should theoretically reduce these blowouts.

[LaxDadMax]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. If you can’t even compete with the lower 1/4 of the teams, you have no business being there. Lindenwood and Queens LeMoyne moved up but they were the tops in D2. That’s how it should be done.

That's not how NCAA works. You can move up for a sport or two (See Hopkins), but you can't be Division 1 in a revenue sport and then move down for other sports.

[MolonLaxe]

The reason we have 140 D1 Women's team is to meet Title IX requirements to keep up with men's participation in the bigger sports. The 75 on the guys side? Don't care.

How many D1 Women's Soccer teams are there? 347.

We haven't even hit peak lacrosse numbers to match soccer yet.

There are many teams at all different levels and opportunities to play are out there.

If Austin Peay results in more teams in the TN area starting up programs, I'll welcome it.

[Relax77]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. If you can’t even compete with the lower 1/4 of the teams, you have no business being there. Lindenwood and Queens LeMoyne moved up but they were the tops in D2. That’s how it should be done.

That's not how NCAA works. You can move up for a sport or two (See Hopkins), but you can't be Division 1 in a revenue sport and then move down for other sports.

I know. Just saying how it should be.

[Relax77]

The reason we have 140 D1 Women's team is to meet Title IX requirements to keep up with men's participation in the bigger sports. The 75 on the guys side? Don't care.

How many D1 Women's Soccer teams are there? 347.

We haven't even hit peak lacrosse numbers to match soccer yet.

There are many teams at all different levels and opportunities to play are out there.

If Austin Peay results in more teams in the TN area starting up programs, I'll welcome it.

I know it’s about Title 9. Think you guys are missing what I’m saying. But we’ve had this conversation multiple times on this board. The people who are interested in growing the sport, which is crazy because it is the fastest growing girls sport, will always say more is better. Even if it means putting 25 kids on a team in Alaska who can’t catch and loses every game 100-0.

The sport can still grow in Tennessee with D3 teams. Let them crawl then walk then run. Why sprint right in. Now keep in mind. I never heard of the school. If it’s a top d1 program especially sports, of course it’s going to be easier.

I know I’m on the minority side in this. I just don’t see the good think about certain teams like Howard or Central Ct getting shut out every year. Appreciate the respectful discourse though.

[forthelaxofit]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. If you can’t even compete with the lower 1/4 of the teams, you have no business being there. Lindenwood and Queens LeMoyne moved up but they were the tops in D2. That’s how it should be done.

I get the skill level concern with adding more teams, but honestly, schools are guilty of scheduling as well. Ohio State 4 first games, all in Ohio vs Robert Morris, Kent State, Youngstown State and Akron. 4 wins combined score 71-21. Then Denver and Michigan both beat them by comfortable margins. Coincidence Ohio State has new coach? Maybe looking to pad schedule? Three of those 4 first teams weren’t on the schedule last year and added for 2024 season. Unless it is league play, no one is forcing schools to “play down”, that is a scheduling choice.

[forthelaxofit]

The reason we have 140 D1 Women's team is to meet Title IX requirements to keep up with men's participation in the bigger sports. The 75 on the guys side? Don't care.

How many D1 Women's Soccer teams are there? 347.

We haven't even hit peak lacrosse numbers to match soccer yet.

There are many teams at all different levels and opportunities to play are out there.

If Austin Peay results in more teams in the TN area starting up programs, I'll welcome it.

I know it’s about Title 9. Think you guys are missing what I’m saying. But we’ve had this conversation multiple times on this board. The people who are interested in growing the sport, which is crazy because it is the fastest growing girls sport, will always say more is better. Even if it means putting 25 kids on a team in Alaska who can’t catch and loses every game 100-0.

The sport can still grow in Tennessee with D3 teams. Let them crawl then walk then run. Why sprint right in. Now keep in mind. I never heard of the school. If it’s a top d1 program especially sports, of course it’s going to be easier.

I know I’m on the minority side in this. I just don’t see the good think about certain teams like Howard or Central Ct getting shut out every year. Appreciate the respectful discourse though.

I have been in the other camp, but think you are winning me over. I keep hearing people say this is the fastest growing sport but think that is when you look at like 10-15 years ago and compare to today. This may make you feel worse. Would it surprise you if there are less girls who played lacrosse in HS in 22/23 year (98,014) than in 18/19 (99,750)? HS girls are the pipeline to college and flat numbers don't support the fast growing store. Some attribute the decline to Covid rebound but seems like a long time to still be talking about HS sports rebounding from Covid? I understand this does not address that the talent level could be increasing throughout youth programs, but the pure growth in numbers at HS level hasn’t been there recently.

Date – National Federation of State HS Association
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-co ... y-archive/

[Kleizaster]

I'm all for growth. The US population is huge enough that this growth can be sustained to feed these new programs. There will never be a shortage of participation in the sport. Now when we get to the actual talent level and skill of these youth players, that's where things start to deviate.

When you watch watch high school lacrosse, it's VERY evident who the high caliber D1 players are. Low level D1 players and High level D2 players are almost indistinguishable. Then gap between D2 and D3 is even greater than the gap between D1 and D2. It's within this gray area of low level D1 and High level D2 that alot of these small D1 programs do operate and will operate from. it has allowed some top D2 programs to feel confident enough to make the jump the D1 and given athletic departments confidence that hey, we can also do that.

When we evaluate these programs for success, we have to compare them to their peer schools, not whether or not they can win a championship because they have no shot. The gap is still so big when compared to the big D1 schools. No matter how fast the sport grows this will never change. Because as more talent is spread around and the worst players get better..the best players will also continue to get better.

[Relax77]

The reason we have 140 D1 Women's team is to meet Title IX requirements to keep up with men's participation in the bigger sports. The 75 on the guys side? Don't care.

How many D1 Women's Soccer teams are there? 347.

We haven't even hit peak lacrosse numbers to match soccer yet.

There are many teams at all different levels and opportunities to play are out there.

If Austin Peay results in more teams in the TN area starting up programs, I'll welcome it.

I know it’s about Title 9. Think you guys are missing what I’m saying. But we’ve had this conversation multiple times on this board. The people who are interested in growing the sport, which is crazy because it is the fastest growing girls sport, will always say more is better. Even if it means putting 25 kids on a team in Alaska who can’t catch and loses every game 100-0.

The sport can still grow in Tennessee with D3 teams. Let them crawl then walk then run. Why sprint right in. Now keep in mind. I never heard of the school. If it’s a top d1 program especially sports, of course it’s going to be easier.

I know I’m on the minority side in this. I just don’t see the good think about certain teams like Howard or Central Ct getting shut out every year. Appreciate the respectful discourse though.

I have been in the other camp, but think you are winning me over. I keep hearing people say this is the fastest growing sport but think that is when you look at like 10-15 years ago and compare to today. This may make you feel worse. Would it surprise you if there are less girls who played lacrosse in HS in 22/23 year (98,014) than in 18/19 (99,750)? HS girls are the pipeline to college and flat numbers don't support the fast growing store. Some attribute the decline to Covid rebound but seems like a long time to still be talking about HS sports rebounding from Covid? I understand this does not address that the talent level could be increasing throughout youth programs, but the pure growth in numbers at HS level hasn’t been there recently.

Date – National Federation of State HS Association
https://www.nfhs.org/sports-resource-co ... y-archive/

That’s an interesting stat.

[WLaxdad]

I've read articles that colleges recruit lax players because the parents still tend to be upper-middle class (and up). Given the horrible financial state of academic institutions it makes sense that if your going to start a new sport you would target the affluent (or semi-affluent).

It's anecdotal but I've known lax kids who've passed on really good academic $ at a school where they couldn't play lax, for a school that offered no $ but they were "recruited" to play lax. This is a decision only well off families can make. Call me a cynic but it may play a part.

[cltlax]

Then gap between D2 and D3 is even greater than the gap between D1 and D2.

This seems like a broad brush. I bet the better D3 girls might have something to say about the gap to D2. Many chose their D3 schools for academic reasons in addition to strong lacrosse programs.

[LaxDadMax]

Then gap between D2 and D3 is even greater than the gap between D1 and D2.

This seems like a broad brush. I bet the better D3 girls might have something to say about the gap to D2. Many chose their D3 schools for academic reasons in addition to strong lacrosse programs.

Not true. the top 3 or 4 D3 schools would roll any D2 team. Agree there are some basically very weak no-cut teams at the bottom of D3, but this blanket statement isn't right.

[LarryGamLax]

Then gap between D2 and D3 is even greater than the gap between D1 and D2.

This seems like a broad brush. I bet the better D3 girls might have something to say about the gap to D2. Many chose their D3 schools for academic reasons in addition to strong lacrosse programs.

Not true. the top 3 or 4 D3 schools would roll any D2 team. Agree there are some basically very weak no-cut teams at the bottom of D3, but this blanket statement isn't right.

Your statement of "the top 3 or 4 D3 schools would ROLL ANY D2 team", is really over the top. Do you watch much D2 Lacrosse or follow it? What are the top 5 programs in D2? I have experience at that level and I can tell you that your statement is wrong. There are very strong programs and players at that D2 level I can assure you. Go watch a game between High Level D2 programs and I think you might want to make some adjustments to your statement.

[MolonLaxe]

I just can't go by the thought that "more is better".

Are there enough quality individuals who are lacrosse coaches currently out there to fill the existing rolls? There are all sorts of posts on FanLax suggesting that a number of current coaches and assistant coaches are not very strong. Where is Austin Pey going to find a good coach? Is a mediocre coach and coaching staff going to make the game better for fans? Will they have a positive impact on the players?

Do schools add new curriculum/majors if they can't find good professors?

Will there be an extra 35 girls coming out of high school to fill the roster spots who are legit division one level players? I mean, a number of D1 programs are very thin on talent currently.

Maybe Duke is behind this new addition, someone else they can schedule for a "W" (I know this is mean, but couldn't resist).

I say all this as a Vanderbilt supporter who has been disappointed that they haven't had a stronger program the past 10 years. Maybe I am afraid that AP will become the best team in TN.

This discussion has been had here and the large majority on this board disagree with you. But I don’t. I have watched enough club the last few years to see you are correct. I don’t think “grow the game” has to mean let’s have more teams at the D1 level. You can grow the game and have D3 teams. I think there should be a place for all kids to play college sports, but not necessarily at the watering down the highest level in college. It’s the same reason why the NFL doesn’t add five more teams. It would make money, but water down the product. Plus less teams would mean more parity.

There is 75 D1 men teams and I think that’s a great number. I understand title nine is great. I have two daughters, but do we need 140 D1 teams? We know that a lot of the kids that are on those D1 teams would be better off playing D2 and mostly three D3. A friend of
Mine told me his daughter started her first d3 game yesterday. He was ecstatic. There’s nothing wrong with D3.

For a lot of sports, D1 is the peak of its level. There really isn’t a professional league in sports such as lacrosse. Yeah they have the AU and all that jazz, but that’s just for a few select women and it’s not the same game.

It’s in danger of becoming “travel sports like.” Years ago if you played travel sports you were the better players in any sport. It became a business and now there’s 300 travel teams in every sport. Go watch the 150th against the 179th ranked club team. You would turn away from that game in five minutes to go watch a YJ vs M&D game. Yet there were probably 5 -7 kids that are now d1 recruits in that game.

Like I said. Most people disagree here and that’s fine. This is just my opinion.

I see your point, but I think you may be taking it a bit too far.

9 years ago when my eldest daughter was playing at club in front of coaches, pretty much everyone on a top 15 club got recruited plus 60% of girls from clubs 16-40. Now it is 95% on top 15 teams, and 75% on teams 16-50.

There is a chart on another forum looking at the number of girls recruiting from teams outside the top 50 and pickings are pretty slim. And the girls who are recruited are generally from areas where their club in the best in a bad area. (like Michigan Triumph, NH Tomahawks, or Oregon Pride).

Where is this chart? I took at look at the first two teams websites you mentioned here, Michigan Triumph and NH Tomahawks. Michigan Triumph appears to be 10 years old and has commits for: Northwestern, Brown, Syracuse, Michigan, Ohio State, UMBC, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Detroit Mercy, Lindenwood, VCU, etc. The in-state schools connection isn’t shocking. Both Central Michigan and Detroit Mercy have new or relatively new coaches. There has been an increase in D1 commits for that club in the past few years.

Honestly? Just looked at the commits for NXT as a comparison—looks like they average about 4 going to big name schools and the rest aren’t too different than Michigan Triumph on placements.

Looking at NH Tomahawks, I can see your point, they have JMU, UNH (in state), Penn, then more commits to schools that are more academic.

Between the two, I would say Michigan Triumph is trending to put more non-hotbed kids into schools to play which is good.

NH looks like they are trending as you’d expect given the demographics of the state in general.

I’ll have to start looking through a few of the Texas club teams since they are getting ridiculous love from USALax Magazine in the HS rankings (which I think is unfounded and unprecedented).

However, as soon as SEC teams and Texas fully get on board, the sport will grow even more.

[lacrossemwj]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. STETSON! At the risk of upsetting some parents, Darien high school can beat Gardner Webb. That’s not a knock on the girls that play there. Not every team should be allowed to have a D1 team if they can’t compete. There should be some type of criteria. No doubt not one of those girls had a good time getting trashed today.

Well one offers scholarships and one doesn't. Stetson also likely has all different types of funding that GW doesn't.

Should the game have been rescheduled? No. But adding more programs, even at low levels, means that GW could play an Austin Peay or Furman instead of a Stetson or Coastal Carolina.

Not sure how this is different than Louisiana Lafayette destroys Houston Baptist in a majority of sports. Adding teams should theoretically reduce these blowouts.

No doubt it's no fun getting trashed every game. Nonetheless, one season or even several in a row don't define a school or team. I was interested to see that Howard's women's lax team, which has won 2 games in about 8 years, had a relatively strong 10-3 season in 2013 and wins in the years before and after against other solid teams, Davidson, Bryant, High Point etc. Some of those teams may have been new during those years, and maybe that speaks to someone's point about new, mid-tier or low-tier teams creating essentially their own pool to play against.

A question...how do you or others know which teams have funding/scholarships and which do not?

[MolonLaxe]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. STETSON! At the risk of upsetting some parents, Darien high school can beat Gardner Webb. That’s not a knock on the girls that play there. Not every team should be allowed to have a D1 team if they can’t compete. There should be some type of criteria. No doubt not one of those girls had a good time getting trashed today.

Well one offers scholarships and one doesn't. Stetson also likely has all different types of funding that GW doesn't.

Should the game have been rescheduled? No. But adding more programs, even at low levels, means that GW could play an Austin Peay or Furman instead of a Stetson or Coastal Carolina.

Not sure how this is different than Louisiana Lafayette destroys Houston Baptist in a majority of sports. Adding teams should theoretically reduce these blowouts.

No doubt it's no fun getting trashed every game. Nonetheless, one season or even several in a row don't define a school or team. I was interested to see that Howard's women's lax team, which has won 2 games in about 8 years, had a relatively strong 10-3 season in 2013 and wins in the years before and after against other solid teams, Davidson, Bryant, High Point etc. Some of those teams may have been new during those years, and maybe that speaks to someone's point about new, mid-tier or low-tier teams creating essentially their own pool to play against.

A question...how do you or others know which teams have funding/scholarships and which do not?

HBCU’s are a different beast—I wouldn’t categorize them the same way as other schools.


The forum on Facebook is a good source for funding, as are the club’s directors, etc. There is no shame in asking a coach on a visit, since you’ll find some schools just don’t have support for some sports—Furman was a great example of this which was covered on other threads here.

[lacrossemwj]

Ok perfect example today. Stetson. STETSON beat Gardner Webb 23-3. STETSON! At the risk of upsetting some parents, Darien high school can beat Gardner Webb. That’s not a knock on the girls that play there. Not every team should be allowed to have a D1 team if they can’t compete. There should be some type of criteria. No doubt not one of those girls had a good time getting trashed today.

Well one offers scholarships and one doesn't. Stetson also likely has all different types of funding that GW doesn't.

Should the game have been rescheduled? No. But adding more programs, even at low levels, means that GW could play an Austin Peay or Furman instead of a Stetson or Coastal Carolina.

Not sure how this is different than Louisiana Lafayette destroys Houston Baptist in a majority of sports. Adding teams should theoretically reduce these blowouts.

No doubt it's no fun getting trashed every game. Nonetheless, one season or even several in a row don't define a school or team. I was interested to see that Howard's women's lax team, which has won 2 games in about 8 years, had a relatively strong 10-3 season in 2013 and wins in the years before and after against other solid teams, Davidson, Bryant, High Point etc. Some of those teams may have been new during those years, and maybe that speaks to someone's point about new, mid-tier or low-tier teams creating essentially their own pool to play against.

A question...how do you or others know which teams have funding/scholarships and which do not?

HBCU’s are a different beast—I wouldn’t categorize them the same way as other schools.


The forum on Facebook is a good source for funding, as are the club’s directors, etc. There is no shame in asking a coach on a visit, since you’ll find some schools just don’t have support for some sports—Furman was a great example of this which was covered on other threads here.

Thanks for the info. What forum on Facebook?