Next Big D1

[ggait]

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.

46.5% of Wake's undergrad enrollment is male. 61.5% of Wake's athletes are male. So if you want a new mlax team at Wake, you'd have to add wlax and then also cut two or three existing male teams.

And if you do all that, then you get hammered by Duke, UVA, UNC, ND and Syracuse for the next decade or two? Hard to see anyone thinking that being a start-up team in ACC mlax is a good idea.

[Wheels]

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?

You're right. At non-P5 schools, many of their non-rev sports are part of their enrollment strategies. At D3 schools, many, many, many coaches get enrollment targets to hit per sport. Some D3 schools get nearly half of their enrollments from athletics. The coaches don't sit with the enrollment people in meetings, but the ADs do. And the ADs send the enrollment directives out accordingly.

I know a university that shall remain nameless where the graduate school absorbed any "scholarship" costs for athletes that transferred in for a 5th year. The admissions officers had the admit/not-admit decisions essentially made for them by the AD's office. It cost about $500,000 a year that had to be made up by admitting 10 additional students just to break even on the athletics costs.

[Wheels]

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.

46.5% of Wake's undergrad enrollment is male. 61.5% of Wake's athletes are male. So if you want a new mlax team at Wake, you'd have to add wlax and then also cut two or three existing male teams.

And if you do all that, then you get hammered by Duke, UVA, UNC, ND and Syracuse for the next decade or two? Hard to see anyone thinking that being a start-up team in ACC mlax is a good idea.

Yeah...it's gotta be out west or down south for any new growth. If a SEC school somehow added lacrosse, they'd try to join the Big South. Out west, there'd probably be a reshuffling of small conferences that would allow for a reconstituted GWLL-type league. Anything added to the ACC or B1G would result in ritualistic beatings until further notice. Few schools would sign up for that unless they could really jump start a program with huge $, an elite academic reputation, and fertile recruiting connections to some traditional hotbeds. Northwestern might be able to pull that kind of launch off, but they've shown zero inclination to start a men's program despite their elite success on the women's side.

Yet...my guesses at adding programs are Minny and FSU...so...what do I know?!

[Cooter]

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?

I think your assessment of taking a decade (or maybe two) without a single conference win is a little excessive. They would certainly struggle the first few years, but might get their first ACC win in 4-6 years, and might take a few more years to get really competitive.

No, this would not be about the last thing I'd choose to spend it on.
Lacrosse is attractive to middle and upper middle class kids (even some rich kids), the kind of kids Georgia Tech is trying to attract. As I mention above it would seem more lucrative now that lacrosse is a growing sport in Georgia.

D1 lacrosse is played by the better schools in the ACC, so Georgia Tech would be grouping themselves with Duke, UNC, and UVa.

[cltlax]

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.

I asked the new AD at Wake that specific question recently. His response was "if you have $3mm per year to give my, I'll absolutely explore adding it"

[Farfromgeneva]

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?

I think your assessment of taking a decade (or maybe two) without a single conference win is a little excessive. They would certainly struggle the first few years, but might get their first ACC win in 4-6 years, and might take a few more years to get really competitive.

No, this would not be about the last thing I'd choose to spend it on.
Lacrosse is attractive to middle and upper middle class kids (even some rich kids), the kind of kids Georgia Tech is trying to attract. As I mention above it would seem more lucrative now that lacrosse is a growing sport in Georgia.

D1 lacrosse is played by the better schools in the ACC, so Georgia Tech would be grouping themselves with Duke, UNC, and UVa.

Tech is an engineering school very distinct from the others. Everyone else falls into General Mgt program but it’s got nothing to care about in the liberal arts area at all. So they’re not trying to attract the English or psychology major from the NE it’s not a focus there. My FIL went there bc he was supposed to play hockey at RPI but couldn’t afford it. Father was mechanical engineer and he became an electrical engineer (doing like data centers and high end public/military work now). The fight song is about a helluva engineer. So Tech by and large isn’t trying to attract lacrosse cohort kids.

[ggait]

Totally agree about GT.

They are a high end, nationally recognized STEM school with a 14.9% admit rate for out of state students. Adding D1 mlax would be completely irrelevant to their enrollment strategy (which is working extremely well). One of my kid's best friends from our HS here in CO only applied to two schools -- MIT and GT. Got waitlisted at MIT, so it ended up being GT.

If anything, adding a bunch of lax bros would be dilutive to GT's distinctive brand.

As I mention above it would seem more lucrative now that lacrosse is a growing sport in Georgia.

There would be absolutely nothing "lucrative" about adding mlax to GT. GT already gets the cream of the crop in-state STEM-ers from Georgia. For a tech-oriented kid, in-state tuition at GT is probably the single best price/value propositions in the country. Probably only rivaled by in-state engineering at Cal, Mich, UW or Purdue. GT also competes at a very high level for STEM kids nationally (like my kid's friend).

They could add an mlax team if they wanted to spend the money for it. But it is hard to see how doing that would in any way be strategic to that school.

[Cooter]

Tech is an engineering school very distinct from the others. Everyone else falls into General Mgt program but it’s got nothing to care about in the liberal arts area at all. So they’re not trying to attract the English or psychology major from the NE it’s not a focus there. My FIL went there bc he was supposed to play hockey at RPI but couldn’t afford it. Father was mechanical engineer and he became an electrical engineer (doing like data centers and high end public/military work now). The fight song is about a helluva engineer. So Tech by and large isn’t trying to attract lacrosse cohort kids.

This is true, and is probably somewhat detrimental to them adding lacrosse. Although it is fair to note that they find players for their football and basketball team.
Their club team went 18-2 this spring, despite having a number of engineers on it.

[ggait]

Their club team went 18-2 this spring, despite having a number of engineers on it.

That's the point!

Why spend a bunch of money to get a varsity team that would go 2-18? Especially since the new team members would require scholarships and probably wouldn't be engineers?

[Cooter]

If anything, adding a bunch of lax bros would be dilutive to GT's distinctive brand.

You mean like it is dilutive to Princeton's and Yale's distinctive brand.

As I mention above it would seem more lucrative now that lacrosse is a growing sport in Georgia.

There would be absolutely nothing "lucrative" about adding mlax to GT. GT already gets the cream of the crop in-state STEM from Georgia. For a tech-oriented kid, in-state tuition at GT is probably the single best price/value propositions in the country. Probably only rivaled by in-state engineering at Cal, Mich, UW or Purdue. GT also competes at a very high level for STEM kids nationally (like my kid's friend).

They could add an mlax team if they wanted to spend the money for it. But it is hard to see how doing that would in any way be strategic to that school.

University of Maryland is pretty good for engineering, and Michigan has lacrosse.

Why do they have a football and basketball team?

[Farfromgeneva]

Tech is an engineering school very distinct from the others. Everyone else falls into General Mgt program but it’s got nothing to care about in the liberal arts area at all. So they’re not trying to attract the English or psychology major from the NE it’s not a focus there. My FIL went there bc he was supposed to play hockey at RPI but couldn’t afford it. Father was mechanical engineer and he became an electrical engineer (doing like data centers and high end public/military work now). The fight song is about a helluva engineer. So Tech by and large isn’t trying to attract lacrosse cohort kids.

This is true, and is probably somewhat detrimental to them adding lacrosse. Although it is fair to note that they find players for their football and basketball team.
Their club team went 18-2 this spring, despite having a number of engineers on it.

Trust me, that’s what the General Mgt program is for. Have met many over the last decade on both teams. Generally fine kids, respectful and stay out of trouble but they mostly stay in the general business program.

And respectfully bc I’m sure MDs program is terrific,but Tech doesn’t count it in its peer set for engineering. My mother in law literally just dropped my daughter off from a week at camp pogo and I mentioned this conversation and she was in complete agreement with me and she spends many football saturdays in the aDs box (though “our seats are better to watch the game”, which I agree but encourage them to hang w the AD and snake their 50yd line seats whenever possible). It’s not happening anytime soon and this far away appear analysis is not capturing the reality on the ground there.

[ggait]

Why do they have a football and basketball team?

Because those are revenue sports and spectator sports. And also because they are existing sports.

Adding a new, non-revenue sport is a COMPLETELY different proposition.

GT already has a mens swimming team and a baseball team. So they'll probably still have those 10 years from now. But if GT didn't have a baseball or swim team, would it make sense for them to go to a lot of effort to add them? Probably not. Same answer for adding mlax -- probably not. Why would you?

[Cooter]

I am not saying it will happen at Ga Tech, just that the potential seems higher.

The mother-in-law thing is probably only convinces one that it will not happen in the next year or so.

[Cooter]

Why do they have a football and basketball team?

Because those are revenue sports and spectator sports. And also because they are existing sports.

Adding a new, non-revenue sport is a COMPLETELY different proposition.

GT already has a mens swimming team and a baseball team. So they'll probably still have those 10 years from now. But if GT didn't have a baseball or swim team, would it make sense for them to go to a lot of effort to add them? Probably not. Same answer for adding mlax -- probably not. Why would you?

Why did Michigan or Utah add lacrosse?
Why do schools have sports teams?

[Farfromgeneva]

I am not saying it will happen at Ga Tech, just that the potential seems higher.

The mother-in-law thing is probably only convinces one that it will not happen in the next year or so.

So the people who hang with the AD have endowed athletic scholarships and have three generations of men (mothers side until FIL) marrying Agnes Scott women, because you don’t even want to see the cheerleaders at tech, doesn’t have good information? They’re baseball team is very strong and pushed many major league players through and baseball still rules spring down here. The football team sells out 1-2 games a year if that, sometimes none of UGA game is in athens and they’re paying for like six HCs for those two programs through mismanagement. Believe what you want but you can’t get much better insider information that I have. Will gladly make a bet that it doesn’t happen in the next half dozen years for real stakes absent one specific donor and most are running away these days. It’s a mess inside. Everyone hated Paul johnson inside and out, the basketball program they care more about hasn’t been relevant in like a decade and bumbling around and they have a strong baseball program and there going to add a spring men’s sport that adds no value to the school. Tell me how that makes sense.

BTW, LB3 has been here a while and guys at hopkins and Notre Dame were starters from down this way a decade ago. It’s not the new thing people think around the atlanta msA

[ggait]

Why did Michigan or Utah add lacrosse?

Because donors (for whatever reason) decided to donate all the money needed to do that. In Utah's case, the benefactor was JetBlue founder David Neeleman, $400 million net worth:

"Men's lacrosse is the first endowed program for University of Utah athletics. Nowadays, adding sports at the college level almost always requires an endowment. The program was endowed through a $15.6 million gift funded by an anonymous lead donor and other benefactors he enlisted. No state or university funds will be used to support the program."

Hence my answer to the question -- the next P5 team to add D1 mlax will be whatever school gets a $10 million donation to start an mlax team.

And if someone wants to donate $32 million, you can even start an ice hockey team at Arizona State (of all places)! That's what was needed to fund 10 years of the annual hockey budget ($2.5 million) and also the new wlax team budget ($1-1.5 million annually).

Or $102 million (for new Penn State ice arena, m-ice hockey team, and w-ice hockey team).

[Cooter]

I am not saying it will happen at Ga Tech, just that the potential seems higher.

The mother-in-law thing is probably only convinces one that it will not happen in the next year or so.

So the people who hang with the AD have endowed athletic scholarships and have three generations of men (mothers side until FIL) marrying Agnes Scott women, because you don’t even want to see the cheerleaders at tech, doesn’t have good information? They’re baseball team is very strong and pushed many major league players through and baseball still rules spring down here. The football team sells out 1-2 games a year if that, sometimes none of UGA game is in athens and they’re paying for like six HCs for those two programs through mismanagement. Believe what you want but you can’t get much better insider information that I have. Will gladly make a bet that it doesn’t happen in the next half dozen years for real stakes absent one specific donor and most are running away these days. It’s a mess inside. Everyone hated Paul johnson inside and out, the basketball program they care more about hasn’t been relevant in like a decade and bumbling around and they have a strong baseball program and there going to add a spring men’s sport that adds no value to the school. Tell me how that makes sense.

BTW, LB3 has been here a while and guys at hopkins and Notre Dame were starters from down this way a decade ago. It’s not the new thing people think around the atlanta msA

I tend to see these things as sort of suddenly happening and not being in some master plan for 5-10 years down the road.
How many people were predicting Utah 2 years before it was announced?
Maybe a few were predicting Michigan 2 years before it was announced, but there a lot more nay sayers.
How about UMd going to the Big Ten, how many were predicting that 2 years before it was announced?

Definitely a number of positives for Ga Tech.

[Homer]

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.

Thanks for posting that. Useful clarification for these discussions. In a post above I'd mentally transposed the order of #'s 2 and 3, probably made things even more confusing than necessary.

[Homer]

I tend to see these things as sort of suddenly happening and not being in some master plan for 5-10 years down the road.
How many people were predicting Utah 2 years before it was announced?
Maybe a few were predicting Michigan 2 years before it was announced, but there a lot more nay sayers.

Utah is an interesting case to bring up -- I don't remember the exact timeline -- but what was very striking was how far in advance donors were setting things in motion and assembling a staff before the school publicly agreed to take the program on.

Fits with what others have said on this thread as well as your point about past P5 adds not having been in the institution's master plans. At the P5 schools, you'll see new additions wherever there randomly happens to be a major donor impetus and the school isn't implacably opposed. Not because it makes sense as part of the school's own marketing and budgetary priorities.

[QuakerSouth]

There is a school out there that is the most obvious school to add a team. Everything a new team would want is already in place. Location within a hotbed. Desirable school. Ability to recruit and get good players on Day 1. Built-in top-notch conference schedule. Locally competitive non-conference scheduling ability. Ability to get a top coach immediately. All they need is an athletic dept that says "go" and a coaching staff.

I never hear a valid reason as to why this school will not field a team. All of its peer group/conference schools field a team.

There would be good players breaking down the door to get a place on this team.