With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

LiveLaxLove · Post by **LiveLaxLove** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 1:32 pm

Knowing that recruiting is now only limited by roster counts versus scholarship totals, and considering how much a school is willing to invest in players, who do you all put on the map to emerge as top programs in WLax in the next 3-4 years? Who falls off the most?

For me...

Emerge:
Ohio State, Clemson, and FSU (if they start the program)

Michigan and Florida will definitely stay on top as well.

Fall Off:
Penn, Boston College, and Syracuse

I think Stanford, Yale, and Duke will have a rough go at it as well.

CnyLax · Post by **CnyLax** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:05 pm

What is the logic behind this? Clemson won 3 games in the ACC with their best win being Duke & lost to Lville? BC & Cuse have 2 of the best young coaches out there and lead the country in attendance every year. How will they fall off with Acacia & Kayla leading?

cdb · Post by **cdb** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:44 pm

I think it is very hard to predict what the fans of these top schools will be willing to do to keep attracting top players. Many of the present scholarships are donated by individual families to players that the coach selects. Moreover, the recent settlement with the NCAA and courts indicate that the schools will be sharing revenues with all athletes that the schools used to keep for themselves. Almost all of the schools undercharge to admission to games. Women's sports are growing in popularity -- WLAX is taking off -- especially since it is such an entertaining watch -- it doesn't have the malaise of some sports that can be very boring if one doesn't have an individual stake in the team.

Several years ago Clemson decided it wanted to compete at the highest level in football -- it installed all the latest and greatest facilities and equipment and paid its staff and coaches accordingly -- that resulted in two national championships. They are now doing the same thing in women's LAX, so I cannot compass that they will not continue to do so. But I also do not believe that any of the top schools would do less -- I believe they will all be doing more. My contacts at Clemson told me that the school believes that women's LAX will be the fastest growing women's sport -- the main reason stated is that the sport allows women to show their athleticism and strength while also showing their grace and beauty. The crowds are beginning to fill the stands to watch the games, because women's LAX is entertaining and fun to watch. -- Many believe that it is and will continue to be one of the best places to spend Title Nine money. The sport is a natural to show the power of women -- the girls are excellent athletes, they are show sportmenship without personally agendas (unlike professional women's basketball), almost all are excellent students, leaders, and are driven to succeed. These women are marketing bonanzas for their colleges and universities.

Womenslaxxfan · Post by **Womenslaxxfan** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 2:52 pm

I don’t understand this post. Is the 12 full scholarship limit being abandoned?
If so, I imagine that “winners” will be schools that decide to invest MORE in women’s lacrosse.
Given all women’s lax programs are money losers and are nearly certain to remain so forever, why would ANY public school increase spending? To win a conference championship? I get spending on football and basketball. Success equals more dollars for the department. But women’s lax has no similar effect.
Adding women’s lax is nearly always a political / title ix decision and I understand why a school like Clemson might add lacrosse. But hard to understand why a public school would decide to increase spend on a program that already loses money.

Private schools have different constraints. Size of endowment. Prioritization of athletics relative to academics, etc. Stanford has historically seemed to value winning the sears cup. But the academic pendulum has swung left there….which might result in sports being deprioritized. The ivies are facing the same pressure from the faculty etc. why spend on sports or give athletes priority in admissions? I would think more than half of the ivy presidents would choose to go division 3 if they didn’t think their athletic alumni, who give at a higher rate than non-athletes, would howl in protest.

I’d love the perspective of a college athletic director as to the calculus behind the decisionmaking as this thread brings up a bunch of issues that might change the competitive landscape in women’s lacrosse.

cdb · Post by **cdb** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:36 pm

There seems to a misundestanding of the requirements of Title Nine. Colleges are required to issue a certain number of scholarships and budget to Women's sports. The question is not if they will spend, the question is on what women's sports. Also, there are certain requirements to field certain women sports by the league the college or university belongs to. Most college have a women basketball and softball team. Some have teams in sports like hockey, field hockey, lacrosse, golf, swimming, ski team, etc.

So, post an argument with a well-thought out reason for giving that support to sports other than women's lacrosse. If I were an AD having a lacrosse program with 35 or so players and 4 coaches in a growing sport allow me to more quickly meet Title Nine requirements, but I am open to arguments that disagree with that approach.

If so, why would top 10 teams de-emphasize?

Womenslaxxfan · Post by **Womenslaxxfan** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 3:47 pm

I was referring to the title of the thread itself, not your post. I hope your post comes true as I love the sport….i just honestly don’t understand in an age of having to pay athletes why public schools will increase spending on a sport that already has a big roster….and adds no revenue to the department. Nor does it have big boosters. Unfortunately, women alumnae dont give to their sports programs like men do.

Would LOVE to be proven completely wrong and see more overall dollars thrown to division one women’s lacrosse….

WLaxdad · Post by **WLaxdad** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:27 pm

I disagree with the premise that large state schools are doing well financially. The one I'm familiar with Penn State is not doing well at all. Lots of football money sure but they're suffering from the same demographics that all of higher ed is dealing with.

cdb · Post by **cdb** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:38 pm

All colleges have agreed to the NCAA terms that they pay a percentage (in the case of the Power Conferences above 20MM/year) to athletes. No one yet knows the effects. Moreover, in the Dartmouth Basketball case (no on appeal), the courts ruled that athletes are employees of Dartmouth. What this could mean, might end my support of college athletics. For if I am paying to see a professional team on non-students, I am going to look for the best professional team out there. In a few years, the dust will settle and we can all see the effects of all this change.

I am not looking forward to change in women's lacrosse -- right now the agenda of these athletes is to play the best as a team they can in order to be playing on Memorial Day weekend. There are no apparent hidden agendas. I love that.

Interesting times, indeed!

suffolk · Post by **suffolk** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 6:34 pm

Yes, the schools with huge football revenue are going to have a tremendous advantage. They could be offering over 20 scholarships and possible NIL money on top of that. Penn State should have a lot of financial resources as well. I agree with Clemson, OSU, Michigan, and Florida as well. North Carolina's rumored move to the B10 will help them financially.

gbswingames · Post by **gbswingames** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 7:38 pm

“Athletes are employees”. There smarter people on here than me, but if college athletes are employees, being paid, doesn’t this render Title IX moot? If schools have to decide how they pay their employees, then scholarship is out of equation if school wants? Thus, don’t have to adhere to title IX as paying employees, not student athletes?

njbill · Post by **njbill** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 7:47 pm

The Dartmouth case was decided by the NLRB. Don’t know where it stands in the court process, but to my knowledge, no court ruling has been issued as yet. Haven’t studied the case closely, but to my mind, the decision is clearly wrong. Nevertheless, it is yet another of the now many apples currently in the air upsetting the apple cart (if I may mix metaphors) in college sports.

laxlaxlax · Post by **laxlaxlax** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:11 pm

Sorry if I am being dumb here, but the ivies don’t allow athletic scholarships do they? So how would scholarship limits changing impact them?

Womenslaxxfan · Post by **Womenslaxxfan** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 9:38 pm

You are correct. No such thing as an ivy athletic scholarship.

NattyBohChamps04 · Post by **NattyBohChamps04** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 10:44 pm

FSU has historically not supported its women's athletics programs. I don't see them investing in wlax. Interestingly enough, Florida has been a historically strong supporter of its women's programs. Could see them putting more $$ in, but I think they need a coaching change if they wanna win a championship. Clemson has put some money where their mouth is, we'll see if they keep doing so.

An interesting look at how schools rig Title IX numbers by double or triple counting players, and including men practice players as women. I think it's a good look at how seriously various schools take women's athletics.

https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/ ... 438716001/

Max Roguespierre · Post by **Max Roguespierre** » Wed Jun 19, 2024 11:16 pm

I don't have any insight into how well Florida State supports its women's teams financially. What I do know is that Florida State is the current champion in women's college soccer. Their women's basketball team is usually ranked in the Top 25 and was invited to the 2024 NCAA Tournament, the same is true of their softball, tennis and beach volleyball teams. And their indoor volleyball team won the ACC Tournament as well. All in all, I would think that most university fanbases would be pretty happy with such a level of success in women's sports.

As far as Florida's women's lacrosse is concerned, Amanda O'Leary is widely recognized as an excellent coach. As long as the talent pipeline continues to bring in quality recruits, Florida will be a ranked program (even if they slide back a bit next season after losing some prominent players to graduation).

LiveLaxLove · Post by **LiveLaxLove** » Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:12 am

Sure, they may not give athletic scholarships. But, a lot of times, the coaches leverage other scholarship/grant money for those players. Separately, when most top schools would have only partial scholarships available, they can now offer full scholarships for everyone... up to their roster cap.
Would you rather go to an Ivy and pay a pretty hefty amount, or go to a big school like Florida, Clemson, or Michigan for free? (... and that's not including the schools paying the players OR the NIL money coming in)

LaxPundit07 · Post by **LaxPundit07** » Thu Jun 20, 2024 8:06 am

I am a little confused. Admittedly haven’t been following.

1. Does women’s lacrosse still have 12 scholarships? Obviously schools can budget for less, but is the NCAA still capping it at 12?
2. Are you saying the NCAA has now capped the amount of roster spots for women’s lacrosse?

Womenslaxxfan · Post by **Womenslaxxfan** » Thu Jun 20, 2024 9:44 am

Depends on the kid and the financial circumstance of the family. For ivies, athletes get the same financial aid as other students. Need or merit or some specific grant.
If a player has Princeton (for example) as an option, is a Princeton fit in terms of the classroom, and has the financial means to attend Princeton, choosing Clemson would be, in my opinion, questionable.

If the player is a bette fit for Clemson academically, or if the scholarship aid is critical to the family, that’s an easy decision.

As for the NIL money, let’s just stop talking about that. It’s not relevant for 90 percent of the players on the top 20 teams, not to mention the other 100 division one teams.

forthelaxofit · Post by **forthelaxofit** » Thu Jun 20, 2024 9:57 am

Let’s look at the ACC schools you mention using the data they have to submit on their sports programs to the government each year (along with Ohio State). Remember too, that Title IX states that opportunity should be in percentage to student population at school. So if school is 55% women, the slots and aid should be 55%. Also, that the Women’s Sports Federation states 86% of NCAA institutions are not in compliance with Title IX today.

Clemson – Athletes 292 Male/244 Female. Women athletic aid 46% of total aid. Total sports Revenue $152m. Women Direct Athletic expense $16m (coach/aid/recruiting/operating expense but excludes allocations). Women direct expense % of revenue 10.5%

Boston College - Athletes 353 Male/358 Female. Women athletic aid 48%. Total sports Revenue $118m. Women Direct Athletic expense $22m. Women direct expense % of revenue 18.6%

Syracuse - Athletes 298 Male/267 Female. Women athletic aid 49%. Total sports Revenue $113m. Women Direct Athletic expense $20m. Women direct expense % of revenue 17.7%

Ohio State - Athletes 521 Male/468 Female. Women athletic aid 45%. Total sports Revenue $250m. Women Direct Athletic expense $27m. Women direct expense % of revenue 10.8%

I have no idea what the new rules will mean and not trying to be “sky is falling”. But if Power 5 schools have to give $20M annually out of their budget, something has got to give. At Syracuse and BC overall, $20M out of $115m sports revenue is HUGE number. Either have to rethink Aid, expenses, number of teams or all the above. What sports it may impact is anyone’s guess, but I would rather be facing these decisions with a revenue stream of $150m at Clemson rather than $115m at BC and Syracuse. Especially if some predictions are correct that this $20m somehow undercuts Title IX if not "deemed" as Aid.

I added Ohio State above as well as you can also see why Clemson and other more attractive ACC teams want out and move to the Big 10 or SEC with larger TV contracts and more revenue. If (a big if with legal fights to come) the more attractive ACC teams leave, Syracuse and BC will be left behind and fall into a mid-major conference and would see their revenue cut in half.

Here is the link. You can view any school out there
https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/institution/search

laxguy516 · Post by **laxguy516** » Thu Jun 20, 2024 10:14 am

Clemson

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?

Re: With Scholarship Limits Ending, Who Makes a Push in the Next 3-4 Years?