doing what i suggest would not nick off any coaches, no idea where you get that from. it would also not result in under-rostered squads. and as you no doubt know, roster sizes change constantly. so the answer to your premise of why would an ad want to do this for that reason is n/a.ggait wrote: ↑Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:46 amYou can work the math however you want.so you are saying that in a year or 2, they could have 12 fewer male t&f participants, 9 fewer football, and 6 fewer rowing, and be able to add 40 lacrosse players without adding a woman's sport. and it's in the precedent.
right?
Doing what you suggest, however, would nick off three coaches (and related alumni groups). And would result in CU having four under-rostered squads as compared to its peers. Again, the question is why would the AD want to do that?
Seems like adding one female team (if you can get away with it) that is played by other Ivy schools is the more reasonable way to go. But more expensive and complicated. Adding two female teams (if you have to) is even more expensive/complicated. But totally do-able with enough Benjamins.
Or you could cut an existing mens sport if there's one that the AD thinks there's one that CU doesn't really want/need to continue.
there are plenty of reasons why an ad would want to add lacrosse. there are plenty of reasons why they wouldn't. but title ix, in columbia's case, is not one of them. your narrative is more than off base here. usually it's banter. but there's a bigger problem with it here. it's more consequential, as by all indications one of the leaders of the project to look at it at columbia is on the phone --- and you are misleading him.
$$ is going to be something the athletic department is going to throw back at them. they're an ivy, and aren't pulling in power 5 money. where and how and how much is a legitimate angle. the rest... not so much.
