If you don't have good Title IX numbers, the money situation is immaterial. A goodly number of the Pac-12 schools have WLax. It's used to get their Title IX numbers up. It is very difficult to add MLax if you already have a WLax team. I'm sure that if the Title IX numbers were there, USC and Stanford could readily afford to have varsity D-1 MLax teams.

for any school to start a DI lax team. I think Utah had very even Title IX numbers but also had a big donor step up(I'm thinking the former CEO of Jet Blue).

Further, over the last 30 or so years more P5 programs have dropped mens (BC, NCSt and MSU) than have added it (UM and Utah).

It is good to see UM and Utah add programs but still a good start.

Since I've heard them mentioned as a possible future add for Division I lacrosse. Texas has 47% male enrollment, 53% female.

Based on current sports sponsored, 53.04% of athletic scholarship dollars spent at Texas go to male student-athletes, assuming the following (all certainly reasonable, although not necessarily correct):

1. Texas awards maximum scholarships permitted by NCAA in all sports currently sponsored;
2. Texas waives out-of-state surcharge for scholarship student-athletes who are not state residents. This is common for public schools at the Division I level. It is usually recorded as institutional support for purposes of accounting; and
3. Texas sets cost of attendance at same amount for all athletic scholarships (schools have some discretion in setting cost of attendance).

Texas does not have either men's or women's lacrosse currently. If they were to add both simultaneously, percentage of athletic scholarship dollars awarded to male student-athletes would decline very minimally, to 52.89%. If they added women's lacrosse alone, percentage of athletic scholarship dollars awarded to male student-athletes would decline to 50.79% (same assumptions as above made in each case).

I would assume that Title IX permits some wiggle room between enrollment percentages and scholarship percentages, if for no other reason than that athletic scholarships provide such a small sample size viz. total enrollment that it would be nearly impossible for any school to match percentages exactly. What I don't know is how much wiggle room is permitted, and in what direction. But it seems, at a minimum, that Texas could add both men's and women's lacrosse without hurting itself from a Title IX standpoint.

The most notable takeaway of all, with respect to Texas, is that Texas may sponsor the minimum number of sports permitted for an FBS school (depending on whether cross-country and track and field are considered the same sport for that purpose, they are considered the same sport for athletic scholarship purposes). In that event, if Texas has, or later encounters, a Title IX issue, the only way for them to address it would be by adding sports programs.

It's sad that, among FBS schools, only Michigan and Utah have added men's lacrosse since ND in 1982. UMass also has joined the FBS football/Division I men's lacrosse club in that timeframe, but in UMass' case, lacrosse came first. They didn't elevate football to FBS until later.

I think you will see less of the Utah model and more of the Marquette/High Point/Cleveland State model. Teams without big-time D1 football programs will look to lacrosse as a way to get on the map of high school kids.

If you are CU, how do you chase a quality football coach while trying to fund a lacrosse program that would no doubt succeed very quickly but on which you will lose $.

I think USC and Stanford are possible. Texas, and Florida State are realistic options because of the strength of their athletic budgets.

They're supposed to have a Sugar Daddy who has already put up the money to fund both lacrosse teams if they can get their Title IX numbers to work.

Due to 65% male enrollment, they appear to have the Title IX room to add men's lacrosse. Lacrosse is growing in popularity in that area, and they'd have instant access to the most prestigious college lacrosse conference. At most, it would take only minimal adjustment from a Title IX standpoint, for example, add a women's team in any other sport they currently do not sponsor.

And while Atlanta is not worlds apart from Tallahassee in terms of geography, it is enough of a difference to give Georgia Tech a considerably larger number of potential bus travel opponents than Florida State, so it also would be a cheaper add for Georgia Tech than for Florida State, although money isn't the big issue.