LaxPower Back-Up Stick

BigTurn wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:01 am It all comes down to title IX and cost. If you add a men’s lacrosse team with ~50 guys, you need probably two new women’s teams to balance it for title IX considerations. A men’s D1 lacrosse team is also about a million in the red each year, at least where I went. Add on the fact that schools may now start paying their athletes, and starting a new program is looking pricey.

The Orfling wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:17 am

BigTurn wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:01 am It all comes down to title IX and cost. If you add a men’s lacrosse team with ~50 guys, you need probably two new women’s teams to balance it for title IX considerations. A men’s D1 lacrosse team is also about a million in the red each year, at least where I went. Add on the fact that schools may now start paying their athletes, and starting a new program is looking pricey.

Agreed. Most colleges take somewhere around a 4-5% draw from endowment so if you wanted to endow a new program to cover coaches salaries and the 12.5 scholarships (leaving aside other operational costs) you are looking at trying to raise $20 - 25 million. If, to satisfy Title IX, you add a high roster sport like women’s crew to balance it out, throw in another $25 million to fund that. That’s a really tall order.

The Orfling wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:00 am It was a great game and a great advertisement for how the women’s game, while different in some key respects, can be a lot of fun to watch. And it’s always rewarding to see stars playing at the top of their game.

The Orfling wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:17 am

BigTurn wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:01 am It all comes down to title IX and cost. If you add a men’s lacrosse team with ~50 guys, you need probably two new women’s teams to balance it for title IX considerations. A men’s D1 lacrosse team is also about a million in the red each year, at least where I went. Add on the fact that schools may now start paying their athletes, and starting a new program is looking pricey.

Agreed. Most colleges take somewhere around a 4-5% draw from endowment so if you wanted to endow a new program to cover coaches salaries and the 12.5 scholarships (leaving aside other operational costs) you are looking at trying to raise $20 - 25 million. If, to satisfy Title IX, you add a high roster sport like women’s crew to balance it out, throw in another $25 million to fund that. That’s a really tall order.

hofpride wrote: ↑Tue May 28, 2024 10:17 am Is womans flag football a div 1 sport?

hofpride wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:52 am Watched the womans championship game yesterday , absolutely fantastic play . Damn shame these 2 grt academic institutions do not have mens lacrosse teams , just mind boggling

gmen1986 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 8:34 pm

hofpride wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:52 am Watched the womans championship game yesterday , absolutely fantastic play . Damn shame these 2 grt academic institutions do not have mens lacrosse teams , just mind boggling

sadly you can't fix stupid ...might as well throw Pitt into this as well. all 3 could have a yearly top 20 program, but refuse to.

gmen1986 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 8:34 pm

hofpride wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:52 am Watched the womans championship game yesterday , absolutely fantastic play . Damn shame these 2 grt academic institutions do not have mens lacrosse teams , just mind boggling

sadly you can't fix stupid ...might as well throw Pitt into this as well. all 3 could have a yearly top 20 program, but refuse to.

Henpecked wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:52 pm The idea that these three schools (BC, Pitt and Northwestern) would be perennial Top 20 teams is a pretty huge leap in my opinion. Boston College had a d1 team for decades before ending the program in 2002. As far as I remember they were less than middling program that never threatened to enter Top 20. Why would you assume that they’d be that good by re-entering D1 lacrosse? Especially, given the fact they’d be in the ACC. Nortwestern has a nice history for women’s sports but I can’t think of a men’s D1 program at NW that has had any sustained success ever. Why would men’s lacrosse be different in the Big10? Same with Pitt in the ACC. In what world is Pitt a top 20 team in ANY men’s sport? Just saying.

There is a reason they don’t have men’s lacrosse besides the obvious Title IX excuses. Each would have very little chance for success.

Late Slide wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 12:19 pm

The Orfling wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:17 am

BigTurn wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 10:01 am It all comes down to title IX and cost. If you add a men’s lacrosse team with ~50 guys, you need probably two new women’s teams to balance it for title IX considerations. A men’s D1 lacrosse team is also about a million in the red each year, at least where I went. Add on the fact that schools may now start paying their athletes, and starting a new program is looking pricey.

Agreed. Most colleges take somewhere around a 4-5% draw from endowment so if you wanted to endow a new program to cover coaches salaries and the 12.5 scholarships (leaving aside other operational costs) you are looking at trying to raise $20 - 25 million. If, to satisfy Title IX, you add a high roster sport like women’s crew to balance it out, throw in another $25 million to fund that. That’s a really tall order.

Right. Men's football is what allows/creates Women's lacrosse, rowing, field hockey, volleyball, etc. It's about the proportionate opportunity nature of Title IX.

Homer wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:19 pm

gmen1986 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 8:34 pm

hofpride wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:52 am Watched the womans championship game yesterday , absolutely fantastic play . Damn shame these 2 grt academic institutions do not have mens lacrosse teams , just mind boggling

sadly you can't fix stupid ...might as well throw Pitt into this as well. all 3 could have a yearly top 20 program, but refuse to.

Because most institutions don't have a terminal goal of sponsoring the absolute maximum number of non-revenue sports in which they can be top 20. BC, NW, and Pitt all already have a bunch of non-revenue sports, some of which do quite well. It's not obvious why they would rather add another mouth to feed than use the marginal dollar to make the existing teams better. Either from a "what does this do for the university at large" or from a "let's be good at sports for the sake of being good at sports" standpoint.

The other part is that these schools (BC and Pitt, at least) HAVE men's lacrosse. Kids go there, pay tuition, play men's lacrosse with the school's name on their shirts, have their college experience enhanced by sports, make lifelong friendships, blah blah blah someday donate more money, whatever. The schools just don't have to pay for it. The argument here is really that they should switch to paying for it, in exchange for:

1. Maybe the players will blah blah blah donate slightly *more* money if they made friends playing *varsity* sports.
2. People like you and me who pay attention to college lacrosse teams will pay attention to their lacrosse team. (There are very few such people.)

Of course I'd love it if any of these schools started mlax. It just doesn't exactly sell itself, is what I'm saying.

D2fan wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 9:26 pm

gmen1986 wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 8:34 pm

hofpride wrote: ↑Mon May 27, 2024 9:52 am Watched the womans championship game yesterday , absolutely fantastic play . Damn shame these 2 grt academic institutions do not have mens lacrosse teams , just mind boggling

sadly you can't fix stupid ...might as well throw Pitt into this as well. all 3 could have a yearly top 20 program, but refuse to.

What do those Universities get out of adding lacrosse?

They already have name recognition and are not hurting for male enrollment. All it would do is take resources away from football and basketball.

Listen I’d love for more schools to add, but you have to be realistic. But lacrosse is a small niche sport.