What US Lacrosse Can Learn from USA Triathlon

Earlier this week, Wagner University, a Division I school in Staten Island, NY, announced the addition of varsity Women’s Triathlon to its school’s athletic offerings. Triathlon, over the last two years, has become one of the fastest growing sports of the NCAA’s Emerging Sport offerings, which has also included the likes of Equestrian, Sand Volleyball, and Rugby.

But what has made a sport such as Triathlon the apple of so many athletic director’s eyes? There are likely several reasons, most significantly the NCAA now recognizes it as a women’s sport, and the addition of Women’s Triathlon can be counted towards satisfying Title IX roster equity requirements. Additionally, the cost to outfit a varsity triathlon team is relativity low, with equipment costs minimal, especially if a university has an existing pool and track facility.

But there have been other low-cost women’s sports that were at one time labeled an NCAA Emerging Sports (Archery, Badminton) but have failed to take off with NCAA institutions. So what makes Triathlon different than those sports? For one thing, the sport’s governing body, USA Triathlon, has been paying millions of dollars to schools to add the sport. In fact, below is a list of schools that have added varsity Triathlon over the last two years, each of them receiving commitments from USA Triathlon ranging from $70k-$150k (press releases linked)

Arizona State University
Belmont Abbey College
Black Hills State University
Centenary College
Concordia University Wisconsin
Colorado Mesa University
Daemen College
Davis & Elkins College
Drury University
East Tennessee State
Millikin University
Milwaukee School of Engineering
North Central College
St. Thomas Aquinas College
University of South Dakota
Southern Wesleyan University
Transylvania University
Trine University
Wagner University
University of West Alabama

Is there anything wrong with this approach? Not at all. In fact, USA Triathlon should be applauded for taking this proactive approach to growing their sport. The question is, why is US Lacrosse not taking the same approach? US Lacrosse does have grant programs, but they are mostly directed towards youth and PE programs. All noble causes, but why is there no focus on collegiate level growth? On the men’s side, especially at the Division I level, is where growth has been the most stagnant, so should there not be grants to help stimulate growth in this area? Unfortunately, at the current growth rate, all these youth players that US Lacrosse is investing in are going to grow up someday and realize that there are very few high level college roster spots or scholarships available for them.

US Lacrosse should consider fundraising for, and establishing, an endowment that annually would support grants that incentivize the addition of lacrosse as a collegiate varsity sport. Additionally, they should hire someone who’s job is not only to manage this grant program, but someone who can also meet with schools considering adding lacrosse and discuss the required costs and investments needed to support a team at the varsity level.  This person would serve a similar role that Dave Cottle served when Marquette was considering adding lacrosse, but would be a US Lacrosse employee and able to answer questions, emails, phone calls and hold meetings at a whim with any school even remotely considering adding the sport.  This person should also be proactive, and reach out to colleges that have yet to consider adding lacrosse, and educate them on why the sport would be a good fit for their institution, and how US Lacrosse can support them on the road to varsity sponsorship.

If US Lacrosse won’t take the lead in this area than perhaps it is time for someone in the lacrosse community to start their own organization. For example, a similar approach has been taken by MotorMVB, a private non-profit with the goal of creating opportunities for male volleyball players. Like USA Triathlon, MotorMVB has been focused on the collegiate growth of Men’s Volleyball, and has also distributed grants to schools willing to add varsity Men’s Volleyball.

The sport of volleyball has a drastic difference in the number of Division I schools that sponsor Women’s Volleyball (334) vs Men’s Volleyball (43). While the difference is not as drastic for lacrosse (112 teams for Women and 71 for Men) there is still a gap that many would like to see closed, and perhaps the grant-incentive approach that USA Triathlon and MotorMVB have taken could help close this gap. Here’s hoping that our sport's leadership can learn from these two programs and the successes they have had at growing their sports at the collegiate level.

Posted in: US Lacrosse,Viewpoint

The Most Frustrating Excuse Athletic Departments Use to Not Add Lacrosse

As the popularity of lacrosse grows across the nation college Athletic Directors at schools that do not sponsor the sport are being asked more and more if their school will add the sport in the future.  The majority of the time the ADs response is ‘not likely’ and falls into two categories.  They blame the cost associated with adding lacrosse, and or the challenges associated with adding a male sport while maintaining Title IX proportionality.  Both of these challenges have some validity to them, but as we have seen in recent years they can be overcome.   Big donors can step up to cover the costs associated with adding lacrosse and or a women’s team can be added to maintain proportionality.  Each of these are easier said than done, but at least there is a path to varsity status.

However, there is a third excuse that athletic departments also love to make.  One that should be extremely frustrating to the lacrosse community.  It’s most recent use was when Michigan State was asked in an article about the possibility of returning its program to varsity status.

“Currently Michigan State is focusing on getting its 25 other sports up to a competitive national level,” said Michigan State Athletic spokesperson Matt Larson.

This excuse is being used more and more by athletic departments when asked about adding lacrosse.  Why do they like it so much?  Because it leaves no path to adding the sport.  A donor can’t write a big check, adding a women’s sport isn’t enough….no, it depends on the success of EVERY OTHER SPORT.  Something no one can control but those teams themselves. And how is their success measured?  If every Michigan State team wins a national championship this year do we get lacrosse?  It’s a purposely vague and subjective response that leaves little hope for their lacrosse community.  

Michigan State is not unique… every athletic department in the nation is in a constant state of working to get their sports up to a competitive national level.  Unfortunately, when this is their position on adding lacrosse it tells us they are also in a constant state of impeding the sports return to varsity status.

Posted in: Cut Sports,Division I,Michigan,Viewpoint

How The West Was Won (by lacrosse)

Thanks to the addition of varsity status for women’s lacrosse at Arizona State, a Pac-12 sponsored women’s lacrosse conference is now a reality.  Division I Women’s Lacrosse has been planting the varsity seed up and down the west coast for more than 15 years, and finally these seeds have sprouted into the ultimate accomplishment, a Power-5 conference sponsorship.

Unfortunately, the men’s game has not had comparable success in rooting varsity programs on the nations west coast.  While Division I Men’s Lacrosse has seen unprecedented growth in the last 10 years, that growth has been confined to the east coast and mid-west.  The challenges for DI Men’s Lacrosse growth on the west coast are well documented.  There are the challenges associated with gender equity and adding men’s lacrosse at schools with football programs.  There are the challenges associated with funding such programs, as many schools are not willing to take the plunge without endowing a majority of a programs costs or soliciting a significant lead donor.  And finally, specific to west coast schools, there is the challenge of geography.

It’s hard to sell a varsity program to Presidents, Trustees, ADs and even sometimes recruits when every away game is a flight.  Of course it can be done, and is done with teams across many other sports.  But for lacrosse, a non-revenue sport that doesn't justify being chartered everywhere, it’s not an easy sell.  It’s not UMass Lowell deciding to go DI when every school in the America East is a bus ride away.  It means increased cost for travel and increased time away from class for the athletes.

What it comes down to is a hypothetical varsity west coast men's lacrosse program needs someone to play, however schools are faced with a daunting ‘geographic gap’ in the countries fly over states.  The below map displays the location of every new varsity men’s and women’s lacrosse program across all divisions since 2011:

While many colleges have added the sport in recent years, lacrosse in general, and especially the men’s game, has struggled to move the dial in athletic departments west of the Mississippi.  Colorado is men’s lacrosse’s western outpost, but the state is still surrounded by barren lacrosse-less regions.  

It has become clear that the men’s game will not grow on the west coast by mid-west varsity programs being added and overtime making their way to the pacific.  Men’s Lacrosse needs a west coast school or schools to act as a catalyst, a trailblazer, to be lacrosse’s own Lewis and Clark.  So which school will that be? Who is most likely to be men’s lacrosse’s own Lewis and Clark?  Since history often repeats itself let’s look at the history of Division I Women’s Lacrosse west coast growth:

	DI Women's Lacrosse West Coast Varsity Programs
School	First Varsity Year
Arizona State	2017
Cal	1999
Fresno St	2009
Oregon	2005
San Diego St	2012
USC	2013
St. Mary’s	2000
Stanford	1997
UC Davis	1997

The four ‘founding mothers’ of west coast DI Women’s Lacrosse are Cal, Stanford, UC Davis, and St. Mary’s.  These schools have a long history of women’s lacrosse, with their successful and well organized club teams transitioning to varsity status during the mid to late 90’s.   One can also look at west coast DI Field Hockey teams, another prominently east coast sport, and see some similarities to women’s lacrosse’s west coast growth:

	DI Field Hockey West Coast Varsity Programs
School	First Varsity Year
Cal	1976
Pacific	1977
Stanford	1974
UC Davis	2009

Both Cal and Stanford were catalysts for west coast sponsorship of field hockey and women’s lacrosse.  Does this mean that these two schools will someday play a role in varsity men’s lacrosse growth on the west coast?  One could argue that it is more likely than not that they will, but when that would happen is anyone's guess.  Of the two Stanford may be the best positioned and most likely west coast school to add varsity men’s lacrosse.  As a public institution Cal has challenges not faced by private schools like Stanford.  It wasn’t too long ago that Cal’s budget woes were so significant that they tried cutting multiple sports.  Stanford, on the other hand, is one of the wealthiest universities in the world, and has an endowment ($21 billion) five times the size of Cal's.  Both teams have successful MCLA teams and undoubtedly alumni willing to support a varsity move however the key would be those alumni garnering administrative support.

It's also possible that it may not even be a Pac-12 school that makes the first jump, it could be a small private school like a Pacific or St. Mary's who's resources are not hampered by football.  Or it could be a school that is not on anyone's radar.  If Arizona State Ice Hockey has taught us anything, it's that a school will ultimately sponsor a sport, no matter how outside the box, if there is a donor willing to cover the costs.  But regardless if it’s Cal or Stanford or another western school that takes this significant first step for DI Men's Lacrosse, here’s hoping that the wild west is opened up sometime in the near future.

Posted in: Arizona,California,Division I,Oregon,Viewpoint

NCAA Soccer Proposal to Encroach On Lacrosse Spring Season

There is a potential conflict stirring behind the scenes in the NCAA right now. Two Division I coaching committees are about to come to a head over a proposal to expand the NCAA Soccer season. The Men’s Soccer Division I Coaching Committee is submitting a proposal to the NCAA with support from the National Soccer Coaches Association of America, U.S. Soccer and Major League Soccer, which would largely eliminate mid-week games and move the NCAA soccer tournament to the spring:

"Under a proposal formulated by the National Soccer Coaches Association of America, the number of official team days would grow to 144 from 132. Teams would open training camp in late August, hold two friendlies, then play 13 matches between mid-September and the weekend before Thanksgiving. (Currently, some teams play two friendlies and as many as 24 games between late August and the holiday.) From late November until late February, teams would go on winter break, restricted to eight hour-long training sessions. Spring training camp would begin in late February and include one friendly. The season would resume in mid-March and include nine regular season matches, plus conference and NCAA tournament games." - Washington Post

In addition to the coaches association the proposal has support from a block of athletic administrators led by former Houston Dynamo President and current WVU AD Oliver Luck.

What is the reason for this push for change by the soccer conglomerate?

There are several.  1) College soccer coaches feel they are trying to cram too many games and practices into a fall season that is not consistent with other soccer leagues nationwide, many that play 10 month seasons. 2) For this reason they argue that many of the best players in the country are forgoing a college soccer experience in favor of other development opportunities. 3) They also argue that those that do play in college are not as prepared for post-collegiate soccer opportunities due to the limitations of the current structure 4) College soccer has long been envious of sports (like lacrosse) that have marquee championship weekends.  The NCAA College Cup, played in the month of December, struggles for tv coverage and fans, with only a few thousand often attending. 5) Soccer is clearly sick of being the little brother to Football and Basketball in the fall months.  Lacrosse has had the benefit of, for the most part, competing against the less tv friendly and more regional college baseball/softball.  Soccer wants a piece of that spring time exposure as well.

How does this affect the sport of lacrosse?

It comes down to a conflict over resources and space. Over 2/3 of all NCAA varsity lacrosse programs share a field with soccer, meaning soccer gets the field priority in the fall and lacrosse in the spring.  Additionally, about 1/3 of all varsity lacrosse programs, especially at the Division III level, share a locker room with their schools soccer team on a seasonal basis.  With only so many hours in a day, and knowing that not every school has a field with lights, how will schools that have M/W Lacrosse also add M. Soccer to their spring schedules?  Will all soccer programs now expect a year-round locker room and how will that be handled with those teams that share seasonally with lacrosse?  What if both teams share the same athletic trainer on an in-season basis?

Will the lacrosse community respond?

It seems that the Intercollegiate Men's Lacrosse Coaches Association is aware of this proposal and is preparing to push back.  The 2014 IMLCA Coaches Pre-Convention Survey included your typical questions about shot clock, assistant coaches, support staffing etc...but also included 3 survey questions specific to what facilities and resources a team shared with their schools soccer program. The IMLCA should absolutely push back on this proposal, and coaches should take the time to go to their ADs and discuss concerns about how their program would be negatively affected by such a proposal.  The IMLCA should also consider a counter proposal where if soccer is to become a year-round sport, than so should lacrosse.  Instead of making fall ball a 'scrimmage' season, make the games count, take a break in thanksgiving, and pick up again in March.  Why is it ok for soccer to go year-round but not lacrosse?

Could this really happen?

It depends on who you ask.  There is certainly guarded optimism among some coaches in collegiate soccer circles that the proposal is picking up steam and looks like it will be reviewed by the NCAA. Regardless, it is still an uphill battle for soccer.  In addition to the infrastructure and logistical challenges we've already touched upon, we must remember that soccer (like lacrosse) is a non-revenue sport.  It will be difficult to expect athletic departments, many of which are already cash-strapped to begin with, to add more practices, more games, and possibly more support staff, to maintain soccer year-round.  Especially when one considers that many of the NCAAs recent student-athlete welfare proposals have involved discussions about lessening practice times for athletes, it seems unlikely the governing body would agree to increase practices times for one particular sport. There is also no talk of applying any of these changes to Women's Soccer, which may not sit well with the gender equity conscious NCAA.  John Infante, an expert on NCAA bylaws recently stated that while soccer's plan is reasonable and well considered "It has virtually zero change of being enacted" We'll just have to wait and see.

Posted in: Division I,Division II,Division III,NCAA,Viewpoint

All Quiet on The Varsity Status Front

As the summer of 2014 winds down, this websites 5th summer of existence, we have started to notice a (somewhat worrying) trend specific to colleges and varsity status. Frankly, there just seems to be less colleges announcing varsity lacrosse this year than in recent years.

By compiling all the dates of university press releases announcing varsity men's lacrosse, women's lacrosse, or both over the last 5 years we came up with the below data:

Year	Announcements Per Month
2010	1.5
2011	2.4
2012	2.75
2013	2.6
2014	1.5

Now granted 2014 is not over, and is currently in line with 2010s announcement rate, however there is reason to believe it could ultimately end up trending below 2010s rate.  In the four year period from 2010-2013 there was a total of 3 months where there was zero announcements for varsity status.  Halfway through 2014, we already have 3 months this year with zero announcements.

However there are also some reasons to think 2014 could turn things around.  Over the last 4 years the month of August has averaged the greatest amount of varsity announcements (4) in any given month, followed by September (3.25).  The fall months in general tend to be very active for varsity announcements, so here's hoping 2014 ends on a strong note.

So what does all this mean? Who knows, could be nothing.  It's certainly too premature to worry about a slowing in the games growth.  However when you combine this data with the US Lacrosse most recent participation survey that showed in 2013 we had the worst year to year growth since 02-03, it's certainly something to keep an eye on.

Posted in: Division I,Division II,Division III,NAIA,Participation,Viewpoint

How To Calculate if Your School Will Go Division I in Lacrosse

Add up the below variables that apply to your university.  If your number adds up to at least 100 congratulations you are going varsity in 2015!

Donor willing to supply lead gift of $3-$6 million +40
Board of trustees supports adding lacrosse +30
President supports adding lacrosse +25
Athletic Director supports adding lacrosse +15
Facilities in place +10
Successful MCLA team +5
Strong lacrosse interest in local community +5
Current conference sponsors lacrosse +5
Small private university +5
FBS Football School –20
FCS Football School –15

Obviously this is not a scientific survey so don’t take it for face value. We are more or less simply trying to make the point that at the highest level of college lacrosse, at the end of the day, money and power talks.  It should be noted that there are other variables and unique situations that cannot be accounted for in a ‘survey’ such as this (i.e. UMass Lowell adding lacrosse most likely to help them gain admittance to the America East Conference).  We also left Title IX specifics out of the 'formula' because quite frankly every schools Title IX situation is different and with the exception of the obvious (football’s influence) it’s hard to predict.

With that being said clearly we have weighted the first four variables the most because we feel those are the most significant.  I.e. without a large influx of money, and without a very supportive executive administration, lax ain’t happening, simple as that…all the other variables it can be argued are just window dressing.

And that my friends is why these ‘Who Will Go D1 Next’ articles, while fun, are pretty much conjecture.  Because if those top four variables we have listed are indeed the most important, as outsiders we have no way of knowing if they are in play at a given university.  Most of us don’t really know how an AD, or President, or Trustee feels about lacrosse unless they speak publicly about it.  Sure there are situations where some may make public comments that give us a hint here or there, but at the end of the day we are not in their executive meetings, so we have no idea if lacrosse is part of a master plan or not for a specific school.  

The same goes for fundraising.  Many university development offices go through ‘quiet phases’ of fundraising where steps are taken to keep a specific fundraising initiative confidential.  If a fundraising initiative is not made public or is not part of a larger university campaign, unless we have some sort of inside information we have no way of knowing if there is a lead donor(s) out there for lacrosse, or if the university is even interested in soliciting a potential lead donor.

So if at the end of the day we don’t have any knowledge specific to the most important variables needed to determine if a school will go Division I, then the reality is we can’t predict with accuracy if a school will make the jump.  We must rely on inside info, research, informants, leaks, etc.   There’s nothing wrong with that of course, that’s the foundation of investigative journalism, and a little bit of that would go a long way in adding some substance to all the ‘Going D1 Next’ articles that are out there.

Posted in: Division I,Viewpoint

Taking Issue With A 'Next Team to Go D1' Article

We here at the Growth Blog love LaxAllStars.com.  No website has done more to positively promote lacrosse and help grow the game in its history.  However this morning we read an article on their site that made our heads explode.  The article was titled ‘Who Will Add D1 Lacrosse Next’ and after reading the article it clearly should have been titled ‘List of Schools I Wish Would Add D1 Lacrosse and Some Reasons I Made Up Off the Top of My Head Why’.  In fact in reality this article could probably have been titled ‘List of Schools Least Likely to Add Lacrosse’. 

We get it, LaxAllStars needs hits, needs to drive traffic to its website, and nothing gets people talking in forums and talkbacks like the subject of who will go D1 next.  But come on.  Lets have some quality control here, some journalistic integrity.  Below you can find our comments, in bold blue, specific to the article ‘Who Will Add D1 Lacrosse Next’ (link: http://laxallstars.com/who-will-add-d1-lacrosse-next/)

1. Boston College

There are a couple big factors for Boston College that make them so likely to add a Men’s Lacrosse program (Again. They had a team until the early 2000s):

- They have already had a D1 Lacrosse Program in the Past

Please reference precedent where this has helped a team go D1 in the past and I’ll give you this. It has not helped Michigan St, NC State, Bowling Green, etc.

- BC’s club team has seen huge success. In 2013 they lost to Sonoma State in the Semi-Finals for the MCLA Championship, their only loss all season, going 13-1. That means there is a base of talent!

Where has this has helped a team go varsity in the past?  Maybe you can make a slight argument for Michigan, but you know what helped more?  The $6 million dollar lead gift and an open minded AD.  

- BC has a Varsity Women’s Program

I would actually argue that this does not help a team go D1.  With some exceptions when a team goes varsity they often add Men and Women Lax at the same time for Title IX reasons.  If a school already has Women’s Lax they then would have to determine what women's team to add, which may not be easy if they already have a lot of sport offerings.

- They have the facilities to support men’s lacrosse

Really?  How do you know that?  Oh they have a field and bleachers?  So does every other D1 school.  Do they have a dedicated team locker room?  Do they have sport medicine space?  Do they have equipment room space?  Strength & Conditioning?  D1 Lacrosse facilities are much more than lining a field.

- Boston University, their rival, is adding Lacrosse in 2014

BU is BC's rival?  That’s probably news to BC.  Yes in Hockey.  Everything else is all ACC all the time for BC.

If we see anyone add lacrosse in the next six years, I can almost guarantee the Eagles adding it. I would think that at earliest, BC will field a team by 2015, if not, then definitely by the 2016 season. Everything is set for them, they just have to give the ol’ thumbs up, in my opinion.

Division 1 teams announcing varsity status need about a 2 year lead time.  So for 2015 its going to be any minute now...

2. UCONN
The Huskies are another New England team that surprisingly doesn’t have lacrosse yet. Boston College and UConn share some qualities that give inspiration for an addition of Men’s Lacrosse:

- UConn’s club team dates back to 1986, and that’s almost 30 years of alumni to work with, and get involved.

UConn's program is actually 50 years old and used to be Division 1.  You know how I found that out?  I went to their website (its called research).

- UConn has a Varsity Women’s Program

See Boston College above

- They have the facilities to support men’s lacrosse

Again, how do you know that?  UConn only has one turf field and its dedicated to Field Hockey (astroturf).  And you have no idea what their facility situation is specific to team support needs.

- UConn has one of the best in-state hotbeds to recruit from, Fairfield County in lower CT. Instate tuition for Uconn is only about $16,000, this could be a recruiting tool they could use. (Some people in Fairfield County may not have to worry about that kind of stuff, but some do. That’s homegrown talent potential  right there.

I will give you this.

- UConn has some great reasons to add lacrosse to their varsity program list. I see Uconn adding men’s varsity lacrosse in 2017, but by latest 2018. Maybe if their basketball team wins another championship, they can get some starter cash? I don’t know if it works that way, but I’m hoping it does.

Ugh.  The basketball team winning a national championship has nothing to do with going Division 1 in lacrosse.  If it did UCLA would have the best lacrosse team in history. If you don't know if something 'works that way', then either do the research to find out, or don't reference it in an article.

3. Virginia Tech

- Virginia Tech’s club lacrosse team is a tradition that runs deep. It is one of the oldest club teams around, started in 1948. They have several reasons to add a Varsity team.

- Club lacrosse has been around at VT since 1948, that’s 65 years of alumni to network with and get on board.

Having an old program is one thing.  Having organizing and motivated alumni is another.  But the most important thing is having an athletic department that actually wants to work with such alumni (see Michigan).  You can get as organized as you want and raise tons of money, but if the administration wants nothing to do with you or adding lacrosse then it’s a moot point (Just ask BC alumni).

- Virginia Tech enrolls 31,000 thousand students annually, and they pack the house for football games. I’d expect to see a good amount of fans at Lacrosse Games, potentially bringing in money for the school.

Wow big enrollment and packed house for football games is a factor in adding lacrosse?  SEC lax here we come!

- Virginia Tech plays one of the longest schedules in the MCLA, they start in February and end in late April. Very simulating to a real schedule.

This is dumb.

- Virginia Tech is successful at the club level

So what.  So is the other 25 or so nationally contending MCLA teams.

-Another contributing factor is that they could play in the ACC, which is their school wide conference. They have a lot of rivals in the lacrosse world, so hopefully they’ll want to compete with them on another file. Earliest we could see Virginia Tech getting a team is 2016, which I think they might do. 2017/2018 at the latest. What can I say, I’m an optimist!

I’ll give you being in the ACC is a positive factor.

4. Florida State

Florida State shares qualities with every other team on this list, while also having some differences. Although a “new” club program (founded 1999), FSU has a good opportunity (and a couple great reasons) to add a Varsity Lacrosse program.

- FSU’s club team has been successful. It’s one of the best in Florida, as well as all of the South

If having a good club team is actually relevant to going varsity please explain Marquette, Monmouth, UMass Lowell, BU, Jacksonville, Detroit, Mercer etc.  Plus it could be argued that Bill Harkins departure hurts FSUs chances.

- The only D1 lacrosse school in Florida is Jacksonville University. FSU can use this to gain a grip on Florida Lacrosse fans, and bragging rights against University of Florida for the future.

Yes I am sure lacrosse bragging rights against Florida is #1 on new AD Stan Wilcoxs list.

- FSU can be a leader in big schools adding lacrosse to their sport list. FSU can set an example and history as being of the first Big Sport school to add lacrosse. Imagine what the Media would be like?

The first Big Sport school to add lacrosse?  What??? Did you forget about Michigan? UGH

- Florida State has good reason to add a lacrosse program, but the earliest I see it being done is 2018. More likely would be 2019.

If you say so.

Honorable Mentions:

South Carolina – If I could add a 5th team, this would be it. The GameCocks should be adding a varsity program within the next 7-10 years. I can feel it!

So the research for this article is based on that you can 'feel' something is going to happen... 

Florida – If Florida were more successful at the club level, they might have replaced FSU. If Florida sees mores success, we could see a team fielded as soon as 2020. Their women’s team’s success doesn’t hurt.

No

Clemson – I expect Clemson to add a lacrosse program within the next 10-15 years. If South Carolina goes, Clemson might go a year or two later. It’s very much a domino effect with some of these regions.

No

The West – Plenty of western teams could’ve been on this list, but the only way I see big schools adding Lacrosse out west is if 4-5 schools go in on the same year, and form a conference with Denver to ease the traveling costs. That, or a school gets a large budget increase. *Cough* Oregon PLEASE *Cough*

The west is not a school. 

So there you have it people.  Make your own judgment call.  I do hope we are wrong, that would be great if all 4 of these schools went varsity by 2019.  But from Notre Dame (previous last FBS to go D1) to Michigan it was what, 25 years?  We could have a long wait.

Posted in: Division I,MCLA,Viewpoint

Soccer's Obsession With Grass Hurt Richmond Soccer

The sport of soccer loves their grass, there's nothing better than a freshly cut pitch to a footie aficionado.  However, despite amazing advancements in artificial turf technology, the soccer oligarchy still turns it's nose up at the use of it at the highest levels.  There are some artificial turf companies (mostly in Europe) that manufacture artificial surfaces that meet the standards of FIFA and can be labeled 'FIFA Approved'   However even FIFA does not allow the 'FIFA approved' surfaces to be used for their highest levels of competition (World Cup, etc.).  FIFA approved artificial surfaces are typically regulated to U-19 tournaments and qualifying matches, or for use in countries that have trouble maintaining grass fields due to climate (I.e. Greenland, the Middle East, etc.).

So last week when Richmond announced they were dropping Men's Soccer and adding Men's Lacrosse there was an interesting footnote to the decision, A.D. Jim Miller stating that the lack of a grass field for Men's Soccer contributed to the decision.  Now how much did the lack of a grass playing field really play into the decision to drop soccer, which currently competes in Richmond's field turf surfaced football stadium, we may never know.  I would venture to guess that at the end of the day the Richmond Men's Soccer team would likely play their home games in a parking lot if it meant saving their program.  But regardless, the fact that it was a talking point for Miller is something to look at.  While soccer's grass obsession is strong internationally, in football obsessed America it has not made as many inroads.  True many of Division I's soccer powers do play on natural grass surfaces, however there are also many soccer powers that play on artificial turf surfaces such as B.C., B.U., St.John's, and Brown (BC and Brown have 'FIFA approved' surfaces).

But regardless the constant underlying preference of grass is there, and in this case appears to have backfired in giving the Richmond administration more ammunition and just another reason to state publicly as to why they were cutting the sport.  Putting too much emphasis on a sports playing surface, unless you are Football or Basketball, does not help a sports growth.  Division I Field Hockeys growth is stagnant because of the sports obsession with playing only on astroturf, despite that fact that all other Divisions, plus high school play on grass.  A.D.s do not want to add a sport that requires a playing surfaces that no other sport in America desires to play on, is the most injury prone, and is the most expensive per square foot of all the different types of artificial surfaces.  The University of Rhode Island, the last university with a DI Field Hockey program to play on grass, dropped their program six years ago because they could not afford to install astroturf, and decided they would rather have no program at all then have one with the stigma of playing on grass.  This is an extreme example, but an example nevertheless of how a sports rigid approach to playing surfaces can backfire.

Lacrosse on the other hand can, and has been played on, just about any surface.  While astroturf lacrosse fields have become more rare recently (Cornell, Syracuse, and Holy Cross all went to Field Turf in recent years) there are still some schools (Quinnipiac) that use it as their home surface.  Beyond astroturf, it's probably a toss up between grass and Field Turf for lacrosse facilities, with more southern schools likely preferring grass due to the favorable climate.

At the end of the day what it comes down to is lacrosse is flexible, everyone who loves this game just wants it to grow, and we are in no position to be picky about playing surface.  In college athletics King Football and Prince Basketball run the show, and for this reason sports that are easily adaptable to football and basketball facilities are perceived as more favorable in the eyes of athletic directors when they consider adding sports.  For lacrosse just throw some lines down on that football field and we are good to go.  And there is a reason why Women's Volleyball is one of the most popular women's sport in the NCAA...lay some lines down on your basketball court and you've got a volleyball home venue.  Easy and cheap.

So as our sport continues to grow and Universities continue to add it be thankful that lacrosse is such a versatile sport that can be played on so many different types of surfaces, even if it is a parking lot.

Posted in: Cut Sports,Division I,Viewpoint,Virginia

The Richmond Method: Cut and Add

As lacrosse fans we should be flattered. There are some colleges and universities that badly want access to what our sport has to offer. They want access to academically focused student athletes, they want access to a financially sound demographic that will likely pay dividends in the long term, in some cases they want to increase enrollment and tuition revenue, but most important of all they recognize that lacrosse growth is not slowing down, so better to get on the wagon now rather than be playing catchup ten years from now.

Most schools that find the sport appealing enough to add we can find at the Division III level, their operational model is more focused on 'heads in beds' and tuition revenue than their Division I brethren, many of whom feel that lacrosse is not yet worth the investment to add to their big time sport offerings.

Nevertheless, slowly but surely Division I growth has been on an uptick, with seven men's lacrosse programs announced in the last two years. When a D1 team is added it has typically been via one of two ways: school adds both Men's and Women's Lacrosse to stay Title IX compliant (see Michigan, Furman) or school adds just Men's Lacrosse and is still compliant (see B.U., whom already had W.Lax but more importantly does not sponsor football).

However, the University of Richmond just added a new chapter to 'How to Add Division 1 Lacrosse For Dummies'. A chapter that involves adding lacrosse at the expense of other sports. This is certainly new and uncharted territory for our sport, but is it just the beginning? Richmond wanted lacrosse, they wanted access to all the positives that come with adding lacrosse to their sport offerings, however they didn't want to increase their budget for that access. They didn't want to add another women's sport, and they likely couldn't add M. Lacrosse on top of their current offerings for Title IX reasons (Richmond = Football). So what did they do? They cut M. Soccer and M. Track and Field and put M. Lacrosse in their place. No net change in their operational budget, no need for new program support investments. M. Lacrosse gets M. Soccer lockerroom, athletic trainer, equipment manager, strength trainer, etc.

Chapter 3: The Richmond Method – Cut and Add.

So is the Richmond Method the new norm? Not likely, but they may be ahead of their time. Division I university male sports offerings are relatively stagnant, and if there is movement it's often negative not positive gains.  Overall there is very little change year to year, and the fact that lacrosse is getting added at the rate it is is amazing in its own right. This chart displays NCAA Male sports fluxuations over the last twenty years...lacrosse is one of only two men's sports that has positive growth at the D1 level.

If lacrosse growth has a tipping point, a time where many schools badly want to add the sport, where the pluses outway the minuses, that's when things will get interesting. Imagine if twenty years from now lacrosse is a revenue sport along with Football and Basketball. That will open the eyes of a lot of athletic directors, and they may be willing to fit the bill to add the sport, but will they be willing to fit the bill to add a women's sport as well? If not then you'll likely see more of the Richmond Method put to work. Addition by subtraction. 

Posted in: Cut Sports,Division I,Viewpoint,Virginia

Growing Pains

With the announcement that the University of Dubuque (Division III Iowa) will be adding Men's and Women's Lacrosse the sport hit another benchmark as it continues its westward march. Dubuque represents the first NCAA lacrosse program in the state of Iowa and the first committed to begin in the 2013-2014 academic year. However, Dubuque's announcement that the program's first head coach, Jake Olsen, has no lacrosse experience except for 'being around the sport' while working as a football coach at Southern Oregon University forces those of us that advocate for growth to look in the mirror.

While Coach Olsen is probably a very nice person, and may give his best effort in coaching this program, there is still no question that he is not qualified to coach lacrosse at the collegiate level. 'Being around' lacrosse at a school that you worked at does not qualify you to be a head coach, even if you worked at Johns Hopkins, but especially not if you worked at Southern Oregon, an NAIA school where the program is a club sport. By hiring a part time head coach with no previous experience it calls into question Dubuque's commitment to lacrosse at their university.

But lets not single out Dubuque, they are not the first school that has chosen this route when adding lacrosse. Granted, for some programs starting up in non-hotbed areas it can be difficult to find a qualified head coach in their own backyard. With a regional applicant pool that is likely lacking the alternative is to pay a salary that can lure a qualified coach from outside the region, however some schools are obviously unwilling to do this, and thus you have the end result of a coach that has 'been around' some lacrosse.

So this may lead some to ask of a school such as Dubuque, why even bother adding the sport? Will Dubuque or other similar new programs be able to attract quality recruits with coaches that have little or no experience? Why even have a team if the commitment from the university is so lacking that it can't hire a coach that has coached at any level? The answer is money. Let's not kid ourselves, even though every week it seems a new school is going varsity at the Division III level, it's not simply because the school recognizes a national trend or is conceding to demand among its student body. In many cases it is because a school badly needs more 'heads in beds', and especially male heads since male enrollment has been downward trending in recent years. The lacrosse student athlete is very appealing to these schools due to their strength in academics and the financially sound families they typically hail from. The typical Division III university revenue model is much different than their larger counter-parts, and especially at private universities. With smaller endowments and less revenue sources these schools rely heavily on tuition to fund day-to-day operations. So understandably an opportunity to add 35-70 academically strong, out-of-state tuition paying, east coast student athletes is very appealing.

Now certainly there is nothing wrong with a university wanting to increase enrollment, generate more revenue, recruit in new areas of the country, and add academically strong students through the addition of lacrosse. However, a school should at the least ensure that these students will compete on a program that is well supported and appropriately staffed. If the 'Dubuque model' is what it is going to take to get the sport at universities in the most lacrosse-barren areas than so be it, but hopefully these schools don't forget that the student athlete experience should be paramount above all other priorities.

Posted in: Coaching Hires,Division III,Iowa,Viewpoint

Lacrosse in a Hurricane: The MLL's High Risk/High Reward Gamble

One would imagine that this last week was one of the most trying of MLL Commissioner David Gross' career. With his leagues marquee weekend only days away and a Category 2 hurricane heading straight for Maryland, all options had to have been on the table.

Adjust the start times to work around the storm's expected landfall? Not unless you want to lose your national broadcast with ESPN and possibly anger sponsors who pay for the expectation of national tv exposure. Move the game to the following weekend? Not with Navy football set to open their 2011 season at home and with no alternate venue secured. Make no bones about it, if this was an NCAA championship game it would be postponed and ESPN would work with the NCAA to secure a new start times that could be broadcast. However the MLL has no such clout, and so every time David Gross reviewed a cost-benefit analysis of the options before him, in every scenario that involved changing the game time, under the 'cost' column was 'lose ESPN broadcast'.

Posted in: MLL,Professional,Viewpoint

Varsity Status and a Well Organized MCLA Alumni Organization

When an athletic department begins to seriously consider adding Varsity Men's Lacrosse the likely first step, especially at the Division I level, is to create an exploratory committee or initiate a feasibility study. Many issues will be reviewed at this point in the process:

Facilities: Do we have an appropriate game and practice facility? Do we need to consider a new field surface (i.e. grass to field turf) or other facility renovations? Do we have a dedicated locker room for this program? Will it be a seasonal or year round locker room?

Interest: What is the interest level like locally? State wide? Is it a state sponsored championship high school sport? Are youth leagues prominent? Is there interest within the student body? Is it a sport that is trending nationally? Is there local talent that we could consider recruiting?

The Student Athlete: What type of student athlete will we be bringing to campus? Are they academically strong? Will they be a good fit in our community?

Regional and National Competition: Is their a reasonable amount of other programs whom sponsor lacrosse within driving distance? Does our universities primary athletic conference sponsor the sport? If not is there another conference willing to gain us entry? Can we compete for a national championship?

Posted in: College,MCLA,Viewpoint

Presbyterian To Drop Men's Lacrosse

While no one would want to admit it lacrosse fans can't be too surprised that Presbyterian College has decided they will drop their Men's Lacrosse program.  Presby lacrosse has always been in a tough situation.  In 2006, shortly after the then Division II school began varsity Men's Lacrosse, the university announced it would transition to Division I.  Presbyterian's administration obviously had ambitious dreams for their athletic department and transitioning to Division I they felt was an important next step.  But what to do with that new Men's Lacrosse program?  Men's Lacrosse was probably a great idea when they were a Division II tuition based athletic department, but where did the sport fit in the Division I revenue based model?  Well it didn't and especially not in Clinton, SC.  However, one would assume the predicament that PC  faced at the time was how do you consider cutting a sport you just added?  That would look really bad.  So PC moved forward elevating Men's Lacrosse with all of their other sports figuring they'd give this Division I lacrosse thing a shot.  Well it didn't work out too well.  With no conference, little university support, and only the occasional win here and there, Presby found little success in the world of Division 1 Men's Lacrosse.  Ironically, this past fall the NCAA failed to approve PC's Division I transition report, so all their sports will have to wait at least one more year for post season eligibility.  Highlighted in the report are gender equity problems the NCAA took issue with, a possible catalyst for the reason Men's Lacrosse was dropped.

While no one wants to see a Men's Lacrosse program dropped anywhere, in the big picture where this hurts is the damage it does to any emerging potential for a southern lacrosse conference.  With Mercer and High Point recently moving to Division I the talk of a southern conference had heated up.  But with the loss of Presbyterian that dream could be all but dead until another Division 1 southern school steps up to the plate.  Given the potential for a conference to open up the doors for the sport to the south, it is disappointing that Presbyterian used the lack of Men's Lacrosse sponsorship by the Big South Conference as a reason for discontinuing, rather than seeing the big picture and potential for the sport in the future.

Quick Hits:

-Rochester Knighthawks Owner Sued

-If SU Is So Great Why Don't They Draw Like This For Every Game?

-Lacrosse Starting to Take Off in South (TN)

-Calgary (NLL) Has Uncertain Future

-Debate Over Playing in NFL Stadiums

-Coaches Urge Caution About Playing in NFL Stadiums Often

Posted in: Attendance,Canada,College,Conferences,Cut Sports,Division I,Division II,Gender Equity,High School,New York,NLL,South Carolina,Tennessee,Viewpoint

In Defense of the Big Hit

Head injuries have always been a major concern in almost all types of athletic competition.  Over the last decade it seems there have been countless studies concerning concussions and concussion symptoms.  More recently concussion awareness has penetrated even the most casual sport fans world as the NFL has caused controversy by laying out some hefty fines to several high profile players.  Naturally concerns in regard to head injuries have made their way to the lacrosse world, with the state of New York almost going as far as to mandate helmets in the girls game at the high school level.  On the Men's side the NCAA has said they will strictly target hits to the head this year.  Even Quint Kessenich chimed in in support of the new rules after seeing them in action in a pre-season scrimmage.

Posted in: College,Rules,Viewpoint

How to Get Your Favorite BCS School to Add Division 1 Men's Lacrosse: Donate $90 Million Dollars

Do you dream of the day where Florida, Texas, and UCLA sponsor Division 1 Men's Lacrosse?  That dream could be a reality depending on how deep your pockets are.  Unfortunately, the way Division 1 athletics is in this day and age (football/basketball revenue focused) combined with a deep recession, results in athletic departments that are hesitant to add any new money losing sports (unless required for gender equity reasons).

However, in rare instances, like when an alumni has TBoone Pickens type money, these BCS schools may consider taking the plunge.  Take Penn State for example, which recently announced they would be adding varsity Men's and Women's Ice Hockey thanks to a $90 million dollar donation.  Why 90 million you may ask?  Doesn't that seem a bit high?  Well look at it this way.  Based on this list, one could expect the combined operational cost for Men's and Women's Ice Hockey programs to be as high as $1.7 million.  When taking into consideration new auxiliary costs associated with the creation of these programs (salaries for academic support positions, equipment managers, athletic trainers etc.) let's say an even $2 million to run both programs.  

So if the Men's program costs $1 million annually, that program could be fully endowed for $20 million dollars assuming about 5% of endowment assets are used each year.  Do the same for the Women and you've got two fully funded potential powerhouse programs, plus $50 million left for a new facility.  Now I have no idea of what the actual breakdown of this donation will be, in fact this article implies that only $13 million would be used towards scholarship endowment and the remaining $75 million would go towards a new facility.  Either way, what us lacrosse dreamers should take away from this is that to add Men's Lacrosse at a D1 BCS school, it would likely be expected that an alumni (or friends group) would need to contribute significant funds toward program endowment for not only a new men's lacrosse program, but also for a new women's sport as well.  In addition, it would likely be expected that significant funds would also be required for facility upgrades, or a new facility altogether. Simple plan no?  Let's get fundraising.

Posted in: College,Division I,Viewpoint

Nike and the MCLA Form Partnership

According to a press release from the MCLA, Nike has entered into an agreement to become the leagues 'brand of choice'.  While the article does not go into specifics in regard to exactly how the MCLA will benefit, from a strictly business standpoint this is a smart move on Nikes part.  Like ESPN, Nike is investing in lacrosse while the sport is still in its infancy, hoping that someday (20, 30 years?) lacrosse will grow up to be the third major collegiate sport.  Imagine if there is a day where MCLA teams are turning varsity by the droves, one would guess that it is Nikes hope that these teams maintain their brand loyalty post varsity transition. 
ESPN is making a similar investment in the sport.  ESPN currently broadcasts over 60 NCAA games a year, plus all MLL games on their various family of networks.  Does anyone think ESPN is able to sell enough in advertising during these games to offset the operational cost of broadcasting them?  Of course not.  The short term goal of ESPNs investment in lacrosse is using it to increase viewership of their newer channels such as ESPNU and ESPN3.com. In ESPNUs case ESPN uses that viewership as leverage against cable providers when negotiated carriage agreements.  But in the long term one would think that ESPN would like to do with lacrosse what they did with college basketball in the 80's, the X-Games in the 90's, and the World Series of Poker in the new millennium...bring it to the masses, and more importantly, make it accepted by the masses.

Posted in: College,Industry,MCLA,Media,TV Coverage,Viewpoint