LaxPower Back-Up Stick

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

They're doing it in an attempt to keep more money for themselves: fewer players means more money for the NCAA and all the middlemen.



this judge isn't stopping anything. read up on houston christian, the only non-p5 that's suing. the nc$$ and the p5s (the parties named) want the non-p5s to pay a billion $ (the majority) of back nil to THEIR old football and basketball players to settle this.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm
the judge? she said it's your choice to be in division 1, see ya later.

Thanks for the suggested read.

Do I get to do this with my business? "Hey, you don't HAVE to work here, "therefore" I don't have to follow US labor laws, or laws against cartels".


I think OSHA and about a dozen other Federal and State agencies would, um, disagree with the notion of "worker choice" lets an employer or a third party break laws. This isn't about the Schools, Judge. This is about the players, and allowing a third party to deny them access to markets. Can a DIII player get a NIL deal? Yup. Sooooooo...how is it ok for a third party to dictate that access?

Welcome to America, where the folks who are supposed to understand capitalism better than anyone else in the world.......don't understand what a monopoly or a cartel is. Or that everyone is supposed to follow the same laws. Oh well. Guess not.


This is all fascinating stuff. The way US judges look at these things.....is simply bizzare.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

What a disaster.

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

Really appreciate the clarification. I just don't understand how this works...or more importantly----why this works.

Everyone else in NCAA sports have no roster caps...and this is because of a settlement that the NCAA had with specific parties in court cases that aren't directly related to the SCOTUS ruling where Kavanaugh et. al. said, in so many words, that labor laws apply to the NCAA, which means things like collusion are unlawful.

The SCOTUS ruling affects the ENTIRE NCAA. I don't understand how this current settlement fixes anything.

I guess we just have to be patient, and see what happens. 10Stone5 is right: what a disaster!

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

it impacts whatever schools want to be in the pay for play business out of the athletic department.

i can add 2 schools with 100% certainty: utah (a p4) and villanova. marquette i'd say is 99%. the other 4 basketball playing big east, 95-98%. it wouldn't surprise me if some atlantic 10 schools joined in. their downside isn't culling any rosters for sports like lax, but probably dealing with the reporting system. and having irrelevant hoops otherwise.

it won't be a long list probably, but too early to tell in toto.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 11:22 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

it impacts whatever schools want to be in the pay for play business out of the athletic department.

i can add 2 schools with 100% certainty: utah (a p4) and villanova. marquette i'd say is 99%. the other 4 basketball playing big east, 95-98%. it wouldn't surprise me if some atlantic 10 schools joined in. their downside isn't culling any rosters for sports like lax, but probably dealing with the reporting system. and having irrelevant hoops otherwise.

it won't be a long list probably, but too early to tell in toto.

I don't know anything about Utah. However, I know the landscape around Marquette very well. They have one of the best funded NIL collectives outside of football schools. Zero reason for them to bring funding inside the athletic department (and have to share $$ with female sports) when they are funding their basketball players as well as anyone.

The only reason I can see for a non-power 4 school to operate under new rules is if 1) they don't have a big NIL collective already in place and 2) they don't have significant TV $$ to share. (minimizing title IX impact) Very few programs who have men's lax fit this description. If I had to pick a men's program to fit this, it would be Stony Brook or Denver.

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 11:22 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

Really appreciate the clarification. I just don't understand how this works...or more importantly----why this works.

Everyone else in NCAA sports have no roster caps...and this is because of a settlement that the NCAA had with specific parties in court cases that aren't directly related to the SCOTUS ruling where Kavanaugh et. al. said, in so many words, that labor laws apply to the NCAA, which means things like collusion are unlawful.

The SCOTUS ruling affects the ENTIRE NCAA. I don't understand how this current settlement fixes anything.

I guess we just have to be patient, and see what happens. 10Stone5 is right: what a disaster!

haha. everybody's confused. ad's and football coaches have no idea how this is gonna play out. below is an article from a couple months ago that may clear some of it up about what the nc$$ is up to. it's as the framework for this deal was approved by the p5s and nc$$ honchos, after negotiations with litigants.

the gist? roll 3 lawsuits into one, get a settlement done, limit liability for suits on the books in the process, and then full court press on congress after showing what benevolent peeps they are. ggait has regularly given the playbook that arbiters of the nc$$'s situation are the courts, fed agencies, and legislatures fed and state. our favorite, collective bargaining is last.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ay-players

number of good quotes, but my fave is from the nd prez:
"The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics," Notre Dame president John I. Jenkins said in a statement. "To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees; and provide protection from further antitrust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams.


come congress, save us from these meanie laws and litigants, driving us to bankruptcy when we just want competitive equity. see? we gave money out. noticeably absent in all of this have been attorneys of a collective union, but of course that's the point.

next, we'll see whether there are a lot of big football fans in congress.

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 2:23 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 11:22 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

it impacts whatever schools want to be in the pay for play business out of the athletic department.

i can add 2 schools with 100% certainty: utah (a p4) and villanova. marquette i'd say is 99%. the other 4 basketball playing big east, 95-98%. it wouldn't surprise me if some atlantic 10 schools joined in. their downside isn't culling any rosters for sports like lax, but probably dealing with the reporting system. and having irrelevant hoops otherwise.

it won't be a long list probably, but too early to tell in toto.

I don't know anything about Utah. However, I know the landscape around Marquette very well. They have one of the best funded NIL collectives outside of football schools. Zero reason for them to bring funding inside the athletic department (and have to share $$ with female sports) when they are funding their basketball players as well as anyone.

The only reason I can see for a non-power 4 school to operate under new rules is if 1) they don't have a big NIL collective already in place and 2) they don't have significant TV $$ to share. (minimizing title IX impact) Very few programs who have men's lax fit this description. If I had to pick a men's program to fit this, it would be Stony Brook or Denver.

named 2 more! they were funding their basketball players as well as anyone. now competitors have a new source of cash. don't believe there's going to be a lot of sharing with women's sports unless that sport's dynamics (women's hoops?) demands it. even then, it'll be minor.

we'll see how it plays out for marquette. i have a feeling they're okay with losing a couple bottom of the roster lacrosse players so they can put seven figures into their hoop payroll.

wgdsr wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 2:25 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 11:22 am

LaxDadMax wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:33 am

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 11:41 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:47 pm

a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:55 pm

wgdsr wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 8:17 pm a fan, we are not talking about 10s of thousands of kids losing their scholarships. this is ~65 schools + the big east + g5s that think they have a legit football team. most of the caps that have been set here fall in line with rosters today. now, do i agree with it or even know why they're doing it? no.

So...the caps doesn't apply to all NCAA schools? Just 65 schools? Do you have a cite for that...I can't find anything.

user friendly version:
https://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa-college-l ... 39610.html
probably 3/4 way down under "more notes..."

if a school doesn't set up their payment plans through the school, they're good to have however many athletes they want.

Ah, got it, thanks. Really appreciate the clarification.....other sources I read weren't at all specific.

For men's lacrosse the roster cap only impacts Power 4 schools.

- Duke
- ND
- UNC
- Cuse
- Michigan
- The Rut
- Penn State
- UVA
- MD
- Ohio State

That's all. Even if on average 8 kids per school get displaced, then the impact is under 100 kids.

the biggest issue for men's lax is the overal budget/funding issues. With most athletic departments barely breaking even, how do they fund the additional 20 football scholarships and $20m they know need to payout. Some male sports will likely go away.

Really appreciate the clarification. I just don't understand how this works...or more importantly----why this works.

Everyone else in NCAA sports have no roster caps...and this is because of a settlement that the NCAA had with specific parties in court cases that aren't directly related to the SCOTUS ruling where Kavanaugh et. al. said, in so many words, that labor laws apply to the NCAA, which means things like collusion are unlawful.

The SCOTUS ruling affects the ENTIRE NCAA. I don't understand how this current settlement fixes anything.

I guess we just have to be patient, and see what happens. 10Stone5 is right: what a disaster!

haha. everybody's confused. ad's and football coaches have no idea how this is gonna play out. below is an article from a couple months ago that may clear some of it up about what the nc$$ is up to. it's as the framework for this deal was approved by the p5s and nc$$ honchos, after negotiations with litigants.

the gist? roll 3 lawsuits into one, get a settlement done, limit liability for suits on the books in the process, and then full court press on congress after showing what benevolent peeps they are. ggait has regularly given the playbook that arbiters of the nc$$'s situation are the courts, fed agencies, and legislatures fed and state. our favorite, collective bargaining is last.

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/sto ... ay-players

number of good quotes, but my fave is from the nd prez:
"The settlement, though undesirable in many respects and promising only temporary stability, is necessary to avoid what would be the bankruptcy of college athletics," Notre Dame president John I. Jenkins said in a statement. "To save the great American institution of college sports, Congress must pass legislation that will preempt the current patchwork of state laws; establish that our athletes are not employees, but students seeking college degrees; and provide protection from further antitrust lawsuits that will allow colleges to make and enforce rules that will protect our student-athletes and help ensure competitive equity among our teams.


come congress, save us from these meanie laws and litigants, driving us to bankruptcy when we just want competitive equity. see? we gave money out. noticeably absent in all of this have been attorneys of a collective union, but of course that's the point.

next, we'll see whether there are a lot of big football fans in congress.

Excellent post, Wgdsr. I get it all now....appreciate you taking the time to help me to understand where we are.

10stone5 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 7:22 am What a disaster.

Spot on!

Appreciate all the great info here.

One aspect I was wondering about is the annual 22mill pot to pay out to students. Is this on top/additive to what these schools are already paying out in scholarships?

For example, Rutgers is already spending 21mill per year and Michigan is 32 mill per year on athletic scholarships across all sports.

Dclaxer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:34 am Appreciate all the great info here.

One aspect I was wondering about is the annual 22mill pot to pay out to students. Is this on top/additive to what these schools are already paying out in scholarships?

For example, Rutgers is already spending 21mill per year and Michigan is 32 mill per year on athletic scholarships across all sports.

good question and welcome! first, the $21.5 will escalate, but it's really $19 to start as the $2.5 that every p5 is expected to kick in to old nil obligations counts against.

then, up to the 1st $2.5 mill of scholarships offered above what were the previous limits for a sport will also count against. lot of rumblings that even football coaches aren't excited to have more than the 85. they want the money to go to their top players. having more scholarship guys who become disenfranchised, even more portals, isn't something they look forward to managing. they want the 30-40 walk ons to be the tackling dummies. and a fan will love this... evidently a lot of top donors' kids are regularly walk ons, and they're pissed about that, too.

so if you start giving out 40-50 schollies above former limits, another $2-2.5 million is gone. seems a bit skewed for schools that are $75k vs $35k, but they'll worry about that later.

also, all sports including football and basketball are now equivalency sports, not head count. meaning it doesn't have to be all or nothing and partials can be given out anywhere.

Dclaxer wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 9:34 am Appreciate all the great info here.

One aspect I was wondering about is the annual 22mill pot to pay out to students. Is this on top/additive to what these schools are already paying out in scholarships?

For example, Rutgers is already spending 21mill per year and Michigan is 32 mill per year on athletic scholarships across all sports.

Yes, this is on top of or above the costs of scholarships.

https://www.insidelacrosse.com/article/ ... 6-54491116

article provided by 51percentcorn. terry foy did a pretty damn good job with this.

Very nice article. One thing I disagree with or which doesn't seem to be consistent is that, on the one hand, he says that he does not think the number of lax scholarships will actually go up much, if at all (as in maybe one or two more per team). On the other hand, when discussing the impact on (the admittedly relatively small lax specific) NIL funds, he thinks this will dry up as it will be diverted to the athletic departments to fund scholarships. If the NIL money diverted to athletic departments isn't going to be used to increase lax scholarships specifically, I don't see the collectives funding it to divert it. If it is used to fund lax scholarships, then, at least at a few schools, I think the number will go up by somewhat more than one or two.

Not sure how many on this thread are lawyers. .... How many of you really think this well go into actual effect by the 2025-26 seasons? I expect it to be tied up for at least another year or 2. Does the NCAA really think no one will challenge the judge's ruling? It will eventually be decided, but not after going through a few more levels of the court system imho. Even after that, I doubt it closely resembles its current wording.

oldbartman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 31, 2024 4:48 pm Not sure how many on this thread are lawyers. .... How many of you really think this well go into actual effect by the 2025-26 seasons? I expect it to be tied up for at least another year or 2. Does the NCAA really think no one will challenge the judge's ruling? It will eventually be decided, but not after going through a few more levels of the court system imho. Even after that, I doubt it closely resembles its current wording.

That's where I am. The kids need to form a union, so that the NCAA/Conferences/whomever can be exempt from labor laws surrounding collusion, cartels, etc.

Until that happens, this whole thing is build on a pile of sand. As I wrote to wgdsr......the NCAA et. al. are trying to keep the money flowing without the Courts stepping in, and without negotiating with a players Union. That's ALL that this is about.

The players should be offended. I know I would be.

if draftkings had odds of this impacting lacrosse in the next decade, i would bet my house on “very little impact”. i don’t see many schools increasing the scholarships in a negative revenue sport like lacrosse.