This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

Tougher to get $ for some programs like CU. by RagingBull

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.