Surfs_Up wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:52 pm
If the money must be spent it seems crazy that big time programs with excess cash don’t have lacrosse.
Stanford
Texas
Texas A&M
It's not really that crazy. I think if you've mostly lived in the Northeast, or been associated with schools that rank higher in Forbes than in the CFP standings (not saying this is you, just generally), you may not quite grasp just how vastly more visible and central college football is in a place like Texas. Even marginal differences in football success are going to mean far more to the university's financial position and public standing than anything they could ever accomplish in a low-visibility sport like lacrosse.
Ole Miss would reap more in extra revenue and brand equity from one additional SEC West win per season than they would from winning a national title in men's lacrosse. So of course it makes sense to reinvest what football brings in back into the football arms race -- because if they don't their peers will. In which case hello Poulan WeedEater Independence Bowl. This is what wgdsr is trying to explain.
Football does throw off revenue for the rest of the athletic department, of course. But any of these departments is going to be full of highly demanding coaches and stakeholders who are convinced any extra resources need to go to upgrading their program (softball, track, tennis, etc). As an AD your second biggest headache is keeping all these pre-existing constituencies fed and happy and, preferably, winning conference and national titles. Who wants to make things harder on themselves by adding another sport that you probably won't even be good at, at least not right away?