Next Big D1

[Farfromgeneva]

Davidson has about 2,000 students. They gave up the laundry service during the Steph Curry years

Thanks, I drive through lake Norman probably 10-15x/ur since early his decade primarily for work and also to head up to a little bootleg ski spot near CVille (Massanutten) but rarely think much about the school even though it’s a fine small school that would hold its own with a lot of the Nescac, LL and UAA (plus the Midwest conference that have Carleton, Grinrll, oberlin, Kenyon). Few years back I had a number of close banking clients between Charlotte, greensboro/high point and Raleigh and spent wayyyy too much time in NC.

The BBT/SunTrust merger and subsequent HQ move to CLT could be a huge boon for the area. They never recovered post crisis w NASCAR or BofA/Wachovia who are basically hollowed our and respectively run out of NYC (ML guys) and SF (WFC) these days.

[Homer]

Elon (and Davidson for that matter) are interesting in that they compete with Furman for applicants in the "SE USA High-Caliber Academics Private College League". Fears of losing out on strong applicants because they don't have a program would be a strong motivator to add men's lax. Sidenote and question for Title IX geeks - Davidson has football, but it's non-scholarship. Does that affect Title IX calculations or is it just athletes by gender?

Scholarship distribution has to match gender distribution. If you have 50-50 gender balance in the student body, your scholarship distribution should be 50-50, too. It's about the grant-in-aid, as far as I know.

Unfortunately that's not really how it works. The number that needs to be proportional to enrollment is the total number of spots for varsity participation. If it were all about scholarships, it'd be a lot easier: you'd just see men's programs going non-scholarship rather than having to be cut outright. Also that would mean Title 9 wouldn't apply at all to the Ivies or other non-scholarship athletic depts, which certainly is not the case.

[HowieT3]

Here's an interesting Title IX quirk. Many of the top D-1 women's b-ball teams practice each day against male players. Those male players count as females when computing the schools' "athletic opportunities" for each sex, the balanced compliance number each school is trying to reach.

[runrussellrun]

Here's an interesting Title IX quirk. Many of the top D-1 women's b-ball teams practice each day against male players. Those male players count as females when computing the schools' "athletic opportunities" for each sex, the balanced compliance number each school is trying to reach.

Such a simple solution for compliance. Declare half the football team females. heck, why not all mens sports? Who is really going to touch this issue? is the lgbtq community going to support it? Or, for that matter, The, " your sex is what you think your sex is" crowd going to support it? Being completely serious.

[wgdsr]

Elon (and Davidson for that matter) are interesting in that they compete with Furman for applicants in the "SE USA High-Caliber Academics Private College League". Fears of losing out on strong applicants because they don't have a program would be a strong motivator to add men's lax. Sidenote and question for Title IX geeks - Davidson has football, but it's non-scholarship. Does that affect Title IX calculations or is it just athletes by gender?

Scholarship distribution has to match gender distribution. If you have 50-50 gender balance in the student body, your scholarship distribution should be 50-50, too. It's about the grant-in-aid, as far as I know.

Unfortunately that's not really how it works. The number that needs to be proportional to enrollment is the total number of spots for varsity participation. If it were all about scholarships, it'd be a lot easier: you'd just see men's programs going non-scholarship rather than having to be cut outright. Also that would mean Title 9 wouldn't apply at all to the Ivies or other non-scholarship athletic depts, which certainly is not the case.

no, it does not need to be proportional. there's a third prong, which would be difficult to use as an equitable solution because it hasn't been defined, but you can just be providing increased opportunities over time to a disadvantaged sex and you're good. it is in the law. many people outside of athletics believe you have to be proportional or you're boxed in, and that's just not true.

[Homer]

Elon (and Davidson for that matter) are interesting in that they compete with Furman for applicants in the "SE USA High-Caliber Academics Private College League". Fears of losing out on strong applicants because they don't have a program would be a strong motivator to add men's lax. Sidenote and question for Title IX geeks - Davidson has football, but it's non-scholarship. Does that affect Title IX calculations or is it just athletes by gender?

Scholarship distribution has to match gender distribution. If you have 50-50 gender balance in the student body, your scholarship distribution should be 50-50, too. It's about the grant-in-aid, as far as I know.

Unfortunately that's not really how it works. The number that needs to be proportional to enrollment is the total number of spots for varsity participation. If it were all about scholarships, it'd be a lot easier: you'd just see men's programs going non-scholarship rather than having to be cut outright. Also that would mean Title 9 wouldn't apply at all to the Ivies or other non-scholarship athletic depts, which certainly is not the case.

no, it does not need to be proportional. there's a third prong, which would be difficult to use as an equitable solution because it hasn't been defined, but you can just be providing increased opportunities over time to a disadvantaged sex and you're good. it is in the law. many people outside of athletics believe you have to be proportional or you're boxed in, and that's just not true.

You're absolutely right, and I should've been more specific: under the proportionality prong, the number that matters is varsity participation, not scholarship $.

In fairness, though, the way the third prong seems to be interpreted is that you can be out of proportion as long as you want, so long as you *only* add women's teams (i.e., get continually closer to proportionality). But as soon as you add a program that moves you further away from the target, you lose prong three and need to qualify under #1 or #2.

[wgdsr]

actually, the 3rd prong i was referencing was accomodating the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. i won't get into it, but no one knows what that means, and you don't want to hang your athletic department on an undefinable ideal.

prong 2 is a demonstrating a continued expansion of opportunities for the underrepresented sex. that has zero to do about proportions or whether you add a (men's) sport. zero.

[laxpert]

I've always felt a Title IX primer should be a sticky since there are new members who haven't been exposed to the three prong test.


The Office of Civil Rights decided that in order to be Title IX compliant for sports, institutions must satisfy one of three criteria:
1. Athletic participation for each gender is proportional to undergraduate enrollment. If 60 percent of the student body is female, then 60 percent of student-athlete participants should be female.
2. A demonstrated history of continual expansion of athletic opportunities for the underrepresented sex (usually women).
3. Evidence they’ve fully accommodated the athletic interests of women, meaning there is no desire to add any more opportunities through the university.

In 1996, the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld these three criteria as part of their decision in the case Cohen v. Brown University. Then in 2000, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals went a step further in Pederson v. Louisiana State University, saying the proportionality test should be the primary way for schools to prove Title IX compliance. Due to these and other similar court decisions, it would be extremely difficult to dramatically change how to determine Title IX compliance in athletics.

[ggait]

In the P5, the answer is (i) no one or (ii) whichever school that gets a $10 million donation to add mlax (and whatever incremental female teams needed for compliance).

A few years back, I would have guessed USC as the school most likely to be (ii). But that possibility seems to have passed.

In the P5, the athletic director does not want to add any new non-revenue sports. In fact, he'd prefer to eliminate several of the non-rev sports he already has in his portfolio. This would be the case even if T9 was abolished.

So he only adds new non-rev sports if he has to (wrowing, wlax, etc. for compliance reasons) or if someone else completely endows the effort. Because any current available dollars are best deployed to support existing programs. Especially the money programs.

Due to T9, the cost of a new high headcount male sport (like mlax or mhockey) is extra extra high. Because typically you also have to endow additional female teams. Or shutter a couple of existing mens sports.

That's why there's been exactly three new P5 mlax programs started in the last 40 years (ND, Mich, Utah). In non-P5 D1, there's a broader variety of situations and business models that will sometimes allow a new D1 mlax team. Hence schools like BU, UMass Amherst, Cleveland State, Richmond, etc. Expect those kind of one-off expansions to continue at a slow pace.

[wgdsr]

as always, i agree with some of ggait's take and not all of it.
the landscape has changed re: $$. a couple million dollars to add a program (or 2) is nothing when you have another 150-225 million coming in next year. and the year after. at some point, they're going to struggle to find ways to upgrade facilities and spend cash without looking ridiculous...
once everyone has their $27 million locker room (see... lsu), and we're really there already, it will be more apparent to everyone that it's the time, energy and resources that they don't want to spend. money, they have plenty of.
imo, the michigans and utahs have been greenlighted (with endowments) because an ad pushing off well-heeled and connected alums without much of an excuse other than laziness wouldn't play well.
ftr, there are a decent number of p5's that have not only added women's opportunities but are also "in proportion". and they aren't adding lax, or other sports.
let's play sum fuhtbawl.

[dawn patrol]

If enrollment continues its trend to a 60/40 female to male ratio are there any programs that might be in danger?

Independent teams seem to be in a precarious position. No clear pathway to the tournament and challenges in scheduling.

The Big Boyz seem to be happy throwing a minimal amount of support to a club team instead of the 1.5 to 2 million dollar budget to field a competitive D1 team. I would estimate that some club teams have budgets better than many D3 programs and might equal the low end D1 programs.

[Farfromgeneva]

Is competitive defined as having a real chance at a title? Granted Hobart is unique and the NCAA would like them to go away but the budget is closer to $500k (no scholarships so that “saves” like a half million), but thy won 11games last year and winning seasons 3 of the last 4 including a reg season (2017) and AQ playoff appearance (2016).

Just wondering if $1.5mm-$2mm is necessary as a budget.

[Cooter]

That's why there's been exactly three new P5 mlax programs started in the last 40 years (ND, Mich, Utah). In non-P5 D1, there's a broader variety of situations and business models that will sometimes allow a new D1 mlax team. Hence schools like BU, UMass Amherst, Cleveland State, Richmond, etc. Expect those kind of one-off expansions to continue at a slow pace.

3 in 40 years would make it seem that we would probably have to wait 10+ years for the next P5 mlax program. On the other hand, the more current trend of 2 in the last 7 years, might make it seem that gaining another in the next 5 or so years might be reasonable.

Several years ago, Georgia Tech was a school that was mentioned as a possible next ACC team. I had my doubts about that at the time, as nobody really seemed to be playing lacrosse much in Georgia at the time. Recently, lacrosse has really started to blossom in Georgia. The Terps have Peyton Bogard on their roster with Ryan Siracusa and Justin Sherrer showing up in the fall, and then Eric Malever in 2020. Nate Solomon is just finishing up at Syracuse and Nicky Solomon is at UNC. Then you have Eli Ensor showing up at OSU and then Gerald Kane showing up at OSU in 2020 and Ben Hull at Michigan in 2020. Certainly a lot of P5 players. So one can really see the interest growing in Georgia.

[ABV 8.3%]

In the P5, the answer is (i) no one or (ii) whichever school that gets a $10 million donation to add mlax (and whatever incremental female teams needed for compliance).

A few years back, I would have guessed USC as the school most likely to be (ii). But that possibility seems to have passed.

In the P5, the athletic director does not want to add any new non-revenue sports. In fact, he'd prefer to eliminate several of the non-rev sports he already has in his portfolio. This would be the case even if T9 was abolished.

So he only adds new non-rev sports if he has to (wrowing, wlax, etc. for compliance reasons) or if someone else completely endows the effort. Because any current available dollars are best deployed to support existing programs. Especially the money programs.

Due to T9, the cost of a new high headcount male sport (like mlax or mhockey) is extra extra high. Because typically you also have to endow additional female teams. Or shutter a couple of existing mens sports.

That's why there's been exactly three new P5 mlax programs started in the last 40 years (ND, Mich, Utah). In non-P5 D1, there's a broader variety of situations and business models that will sometimes allow a new D1 mlax team. Hence schools like BU, UMass Amherst, Cleveland State, Richmond, etc. Expect those kind of one-off expansions to continue at a slow pace.

Not a big deal or anything, but since I get my law degree from Better call Saul, isn't getting the name pertinent ? Lowell, NOT lord Jeff

[ggait]

If enrollment continues its trend to a 60/40 female to male ratio are there any programs that might be in danger?

Probably not.

If you already have a team, you're not required to cut that team in order to get to proportional numbers. You just have to work on expanding opportunities for the under-represented gender. So long as your numbers are moving in the right direction and not getting worse, your current portfolio of teams can stay. But this approach does require the overall size of the athletic program to grow over time.

Most schools are not proportional and this is how they comply. They keep their existing mens teams (for the most part), add new female teams from time to time (e.g. wlax, wrowing), and don't add any new mens teams.

But if/when a school wants to right size the portfolio of teams (usually for budget reasons not legal), the cuts have to fall mostly on the over-represented gender teams. In order to keep the numbers moving in the right direction.

[ggait]

Several years ago, Georgia Tech was a school that was mentioned as a possible next ACC team. I had my doubts about that at the time, as nobody really seemed to be playing lacrosse much in Georgia at the time. Recently, lacrosse has really started to blossom in Georgia.

GT is right at proportionality. 61% male enrollment, 61% male athletes. So they could add mlax if they also added wlax at the same time. That would be expensive, but maybe GT has the money (or could get someone to donate it). So the real question is, why exactly would GT be interested in doing this?

It is true that lax is getting more popular in GA. Right now, many of those local kids populate GT's very strong MCLA team, which made the MCLA final four last year. Nice success and costs the athletic department zero. That formula seems to work well at a lot of other P5 schools located in places where lax is becoming more popular -- Colorado, ASU, Cal, Florida State, etc. Doesn't seem broke, so let's not fix it.

Or we could increase our athletic department annual budget by $3 million for two new teams. In order to join the ACC as a start-up mlax team? Which might equate to a decade (maybe two decades) without a single conference win.

Even if you had the money, wouldn't this be about the last thing you'd choose to spend it on? What exactly is the ROI?

[ABV 8.3%]

ROI? For a non profit? Is that what colleges base infrastructure expenses on, ROI?

Georgia Tech athletic non profit has over $300 million in assets. (58-0622514 EIN)

Lot's of fat to trim in all those expenses. $2 million in payouts to former trustees? BAM, there's your lacrosse budget. Add in camps, Tribe 7 equipment sponsorship and the 20 FULL PAY payers.........so doable.

This is on top of the $2 BILLION in assets for the GA Tech general fund.

[Farfromgeneva]

My FIl is “ranked” inside the top 75 donors to the athletic dept (they changed the scoring recently just to screw everyone and get more dough), but I recall when the old aD who was almost as bad as debbie yow as a fiduciary, and he was begging for money to buy out Paul hewitts contract he just extended 7yrs, got no traction, fired him and is paying the full nut. Also paying Paul johnson and Brian Gregory. They’re in bad financial shape compared w peers. It would take a singular donor and can’t see any on the horizon. The women’s basketball team is going through a revolution as 5 (that I know of) scholarship funding donors are pulling away bc the way the new ad fired Michelle Joseph.

Just can’t imagine adding lax, even with their mcla success, is on the intermediate horizon, but you never know. A “minor” sports endowment scholarship starts at $500k and the number is really $1mm for non BB/FB. That seems to tell me it’s at least $10mm for lax.

Now ksU or ga state, who has ambitions of growing like Ucc but a smaller budget, might be better candidates. Especially as GSU takes over more real estate in Atlanta including the old Braves stadium.

[TotoketLax]

How about Wake Forest?

Already an ACC member too. In NC where lacrosse is growing, a desirable academic school, seems like it could be a good fit. Though not aware of any school specific T9 issues or other things that would make it less likely.

[ggait]

ROI? For a non profit? Is that what colleges base infrastructure expenses on, ROI?

I was using "ROI" as slang.

Meaning, if I spend an extra $3 million a year, what do I get for that? Or said another way, "the reason I'm doing this is ____?"

Even if you are a non-profit with unlimited money (which appears to not be the case at GT), you still need to have reasons for doing what you do. From the outside, what's the compelling reason why GT would even consider this?