Another problem Lacrosse doesn't want to face
by flanner96 (2022-05-10 14:22:17)

I love the sport. Love it. Have for 40 years. Tried to get my high school to start a team because every one around us did. (Decades later they got one. Go Westhill Vikings!)

For all the talk about expanding the sport from the powers that be, they really don't walk the walk. The geography of this tournament field is a serious backward slide.

Of the 18 teams in the field, 14 are within an hour's drive of I-95. Two others are within about 200 miles. Only 1 is west of Pennsylvania. Obviously that would have changed if Utah beat Robert Morris.

Sure, Quint and Carc will probably get on the broadcasts and talk about how the sport is flourishing and that high schools all over are sending players to programs now. But that only goes so far. Why would any school want to add the sport when they see that it's still a small club that only the privileged few are allowed into?

Really nothing says "lacrosse is an elitist sport that no real person cares about" quite like including 6 Ivy league schools in your tournament and not giving anyone west of the Volvo Belt a tournament bid.


Could the tournament grow to 20 or 24 teams?
by MobileIrish  (2022-05-10 15:07:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Give the top 4 or top 8 seeds a 1st round bye.

A Division III coach told me that Division I hasn’t really grown enough to match the growth at the youth and HS levels.


aren't enough D1 varsity programs to expand the tournament
by melanzana  (2022-05-10 15:15:44)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The NCAA tournaments sizes are generally determined by how many schools field teams. The women's lacrosse field has grown as the number of schools fielding women's programs has grown.


One possible work-around for that
by tf86  (2022-05-11 09:58:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

If enough conferences have AQ bids, I think they'll expand the field to 24. To me, the magic number for conferences with AQ bids is 11.

The reason I say that is this: this year, as well as in the past, we've had 10 conferences with AQ bids. In that scenario, they've added 2 play-in games for the bottom 4 AQ teams. If the number goes to 11, then adding another play-in game means that 6 AQ teams are involved in play-in games. I don't think the conferences will go for a scenario where the majority of conference champions are involved in play-in games. Further, under NCAA rules, in any championship tournament at least half of all bids must be at-large. So in that scenario, I see a 24-team field with 11 AQ bids and 13 at-large bids, and a first-round bye for the top 8 teams.

Problem is that the sport isn't moving in the right direction. Next year, the Atlantic 10 will sponsor men's lacrosse, a move I've been predicting for some time. But that move combined with a few other realignment issues will result in the NEC and SoCon each dropping men's lacrosse, so we're back to 9 conferences with AQ bids. I'll have a post up, hopefully by the weekend at latest, explaining in greater detail.


Terry Foy of IL.com is advocating for more schools...
by flanner96  (2022-05-10 15:19:43)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

..to add the sport, which I would definitely love to see. I wish MSU and Butler would bring back their teams. I long for the day that USC goes varsity, so Sergio Perkovic Jr. can cruelly rip their hearts out and stomp on them.


Then you're bumping up against Title IX, aren't you? *
by El Kabong  (2022-05-10 15:30:07)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Title IX calculations seem screwy anyway
by NDoggie78  (2022-05-11 10:33:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

This came up several years ago when we were debating ACC adding another school to have a tournament (Louisville seemed most likely). I don't remember the exact numbers, but when looking at all varsity sports for teams in the ACC and looking at max scholarships for each, they just didn't add up to 1:1 with women's sports.
I know there are waivers and such, but it seemed at the time that Louisville - compared to the other schools - could add lacrosse. Now maybe they weren't interested and of course their athletic department is in upheaval mode now.

Here's what I found from that discussion on ND vs UofL:
ND has 3 Men's sports that Louisville doesn't have:
Fencing
Hockey
Lacrosse
And 1 Women's sport that Louisville doesn't have:
Fencing (and that one balances out with Men's fencing)
Louisville has Women's sport that ND doesn't have
Field Hockey

So it would seem by Title IX standards compared to ND, Louisville should have plenty of room to add 12.6 scholarships for Lacrosse.

It would be interesting to know how they come up with Title IX numbers. Stanford doesn't seem to have a problem with having every team under the sun.


Title IX doesn't require 1:1 scholarship ratio
by tf86  (2022-05-11 13:16:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It requires that athletic scholarships be proportionate to student body male-female ratio. IIRC, Louisville has a higher ratio of female to male students than ND does, so that might account for at least some of the difference. Whether Louisville could add men's lacrosse notwithstanding that, I don't know.


I realize that, but in my comparison, ND is + 3 mens sports
by NDoggie78  (2022-05-11 14:17:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

ND has what equates to 3 more men's sports than UofL (2 additional mens sports + 1 less women's sport)

I don't know how the formula is applied, but Louisville is 54% female vs ND at 48%. That wouldn't seem like what is a 3 sport difference with those sports having 18, 12.6, and 12 scholarships. But of course whether they want to add a sport and are able to add are two different questions


Fwiw, I ran the numbers on Louisville
by tf86  (2022-05-12 10:08:59)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It seems to me that right now, they're out of compliance with Title IX, unless either: (1) there's something about the computations I'm not understanding; (2) they have a waiver; or (3) Title IX permits a bit of a fudge factor (I'd say this is more than likely, given that it would be nearly impossible to match these numbers completely. The question is, how big a fudge factor do they allow?) Either way, if they add men's lacrosse, they'd probably have to add two women's sports as well in order to make their Title IX numbers better.


I think when someone was running numbers before
by NDoggie78  (2022-05-12 12:21:12)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

all the teams being discussed seemed out of compliance including ND, but I may be mis-remembering and regardless, no one is asking us.


It looked to me like pretty much everyone is out of
by tf86  (2022-05-12 12:51:49)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Compliance, even Georgia Tech despite a very favorable male:female ratio for Title IX (61-39). I think there is something we're all overlooking, as we don't see any women's groups up in arms about this, as I think they would be if there was mass noncompliance. Maybe the fudge factor is much higher than any of us realize (just spitballing here, but a fudge factor of 10%, while high, is not entirely out of the question.)


Depends on which schools are added
by tf86  (2022-05-11 10:12:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Michigan State and USC, definitely. Butler, not so much.

There are a number of Division 1 schools that don't play football at all. For those schools, adding men's lacrosse doesn't bump up against Title IX, or at least not to the same extent that occurs with a football school.

Moreover, a number of FBS schools have added women's lacrosse in recent years, or plan to do so in the near future. These schools are:

Akron
Arizona State
Clemson
East Carolina
Eastern Michigan
Kent State
Pitt
South Florida

Additionally, the following Division 1 non-FBS schools all are adding, or recently added, women's lacrosse without adding men's lacrosse as well:

Butler
Rhode Island
Wofford
Xavier
Youngstown State

The majority of these schools are off the beaten geographic path for men's lacrosse. Moreover, unless they added women's lacrosse programs as a means of addressing existing Title IX issues, I see no reason why, from a Title IX perspective at least, they would have been precluded from starting a men's lacrosse program in conjunction with the new women's lacrosse program.


I wish schools could find a way for more men's sports
by melanzana  (2022-05-11 07:12:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Maybe somehow NIL can help (I have no idea how?!?!) schools increase men's Olympic sports opportunities.

In a dream world, I'd love to see ND reinstate wrestling. I hope men's lax hasn't hit its ceiling at the D1 level.

All these schools dropping men's swimming, men's volleyball, men's gymnastics, etc. It's really bad for so many reasons, including the US Olympics teams.


Fwiw, men's lacrosse appears to be adding two new programs
by tf86  (2022-05-11 10:17:39)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In 2023: Lindenwood and Queens University, Charlotte.

The bad news: both are making the transition from Division 2 to Division 1. That means that the last four new Division 1 men's lacrosse programs were programs that transitioned from Division 2: these two plus Long Island and Merrimack.


You'd need a Title IX waiver for football *
by El Kabong  (2022-05-11 07:36:40)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Absolutely.
by flanner96  (2022-05-10 15:38:56)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

A few folks here are debating him about Power 5 teams with WLAX and no men's team versus his approach, DI schools with no football. It's a balancing acto for sure, but there are some spots where gains can be made.

The ACC, after this year, should probably lean on Louisville and BC to step up somehow.


Following up on Foy's approach
by tf86  (2022-05-15 18:20:09)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Adding Division 1 programs with no football (FBS or FCS) and no women's lacrosse (presumably to add the sport in conjunction with men's lacrosse and negate Title IX issues) isn't the sexiest way to grow the sport, but it may be the most effective way to grow the sport given the Title IX issues this sport in particular faces.

If that's the approach to take, these are the schools to target (grouped by primary conferences, note that the websites I relied upon may not be 100% accurate):

ASUN: Florida Gulf Coast, Lipscomb, North Florida
A-10: Saint Louis
Big East: DePaul
Big West: UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara
CAA: Northeastern
Horizon: Milwaukee, Wright State
MAAC: Iona, Rider, St. Peter's
MEAC: Coppin State
Missouri Valley: Evansville
Ohio Valley: SIU Edwardsville
Patriot: American
Summit: Kansas City
WCC: Loyola Marymount, Pacific, Portland, San Diego

As for what that would do for the tournament, I could see the field expanding to 24 teams with as few as five additions from this list, provided that they were the right additions. To get to 32 you would need to add almost everybody on that list.


Well, On a Short-Range Strategy....
by dillon77  (2022-05-10 19:32:26)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It would help if the ACC could get to 6 teams and have a de facto "real" conference.

So, should people lean other ACC teams, as you note, such as Louisville, Pitt and BC, all of which have women's teams.

I've always thought my son's alma mater, Wake Forest, would be a prime candidate for lax since -- after North Carolina and Georgia -- they draw heavily from New Jersey and New York, which are obviously lax hotbeds for both guys and girls.

And then the ACC could do what I think is obvious: see if Johns Hopkins wants to leave the B1G and join the ACC, which would fit in much better with their draw.


When Hopkins moved to the B1G, rumors are they
by Steelhop  (2022-05-15 09:33:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Asked the ACC first about being an affiliate member like it is with the B1G because it would have made a ton of sense given Hopkins already played most of the ACC. The ACC said no. Even with this season, I doubt the ACC has changed their mind.


The ACC has never been overly concerned about an AQ bid
by tf86  (2022-05-11 10:26:00)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

That has been unfortunate. If we're looking for a silver lining in the results of the NCAA selection committee, that could be it.

The problem the ACC faces is that it probably has to add two programs simultaneously. If only one program joins, it faces the likely prospect of cellar dwelling for the foreseeable future. Adding two programs at least gives those programs the opportunity to compete against each other to avoid the cellar.

From a Title IX perspective, I believe Georgia Tech might be the easiest ACC school to add men's lacrosse. If memory serves, Georgia Tech has 63% male enrollment.


Well, that Engineering Major at GT Comes in Handy....
by dillon77  (2022-05-12 14:59:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

...he says, fully joking about old stereotypes.

From a "where they draw from" perspective, Wake Forest would be an excellent candidate. However, from a Title IX perspective, they're 54% female and 46% male. If anything, a girls lax program would be an idea for them.

I brought this up earlier, how about the idea of getting Johns Hopkins to switch from B1G to ACC?


I think for that to happen
by tf86  (2022-05-13 13:13:16)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The B1G probably would have to add a homegrown program, in which case they might not care too much about Hopkins. Also, the B1G has Maryland, so that offsets the geographic advantage the ACC otherwise would have.


Today I learned there are only 5 ACC D-1 programs
by ndzippy  (2022-05-11 09:52:04)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I had no idea. I figured it was a 15-team league.

As you can tell, I don't know squat about college lacrosse.


I wish it was a 15 team league!
by flanner96  (2022-05-11 11:29:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

That would be awesome for the sport. I think Miami and FSU would have no problem finding high school talent if they wanted to commit to programs.

I still have a sneaking suspicion that there's a portion of the lacrosse community that would not welcome that kind of growth, because it threatens their hegemony.

One day though, before I die hopefully, I would love to see a men's final four that looks something like ND/USC/Georgia Tech/Oregon.


Another problem
by tf86  (2022-05-11 13:12:53)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

OOC scheduling traditionally has been an important part of men's lacrosse. In a sport with a short season, either a conference that size would threaten OOC play, or alternatively, you wouldn't play every team in your conference. Either situation is not ideal.