MCLA's Future (Theory)

[NELAX21]

club hockey is very much like our league, my brother played on the team for a while at UCLA and it seems the situations are very similar. The biggest difference is that hockey is not growing around the country at any rate close to Lacrosse. Hockey will not grow at the D1 level for the same reason that lacrosse is not growing, then you have to add building an ice rink.


To comment on the idea that if athletic departments start to see lacrosse as a money maker that they will add it, but you have to make money for not only the lacrosse budget, but also what ever female sport is added because womens sports to not gain money... and if they do then the school will already have it i.e Volleyball at Nebraska sells out every single home game so they actually make money

[Sonny]

Volleyball at Nebraska sells out every single home game so they actually make money

Despite the sellouts, I doubt Volleyball at Nebraska makes enough money through ticket sales to cover the entire cost of the program scholarships, coaching salaries, recruiting budget, travel budget, uniforms, etc. You have to look at the entire budget of the program when considering if a program is a "money maker."

[PigPen]

Look at the instabilty when a coach laterals to a different MCLA program - Troy Hood left Wash U for Lindenwood. (Wash U folded their program earlier this year in the GRLC.)

That's a testament to they kind of program Troy runs.

To comment on the idea that if athletic departments start to see lacrosse as a money maker that they will add it, but you have to make money for not only the lacrosse budget, but also what ever female sport is added because womens sports to not gain money... and if they do then the school will already have it i.e Volleyball at Nebraska sells out every single home game so they actually make money

Title IX says nothing about adding a women's sport when adding a men's sport-just that the money needs to be distributed equally. with that lok at this scenario:

College X decides to add men's lax for amount A. To be in compliance they also add women's equestrian, women's rifle, women's CC, and women's archery (all of these sports have small rosters and relatively low costs when compared to the monster that is Mens' D1 football). College X know they aren't making a single buck for the women's sports (after all who wants to pay to watch anyone take a horse jumping over a fence) but can see a bit of revenue stream from men's lax. Looking at it this way-if you want to add teams might as well try to take in some money while doing it as oppposed to going even further in the red from it.

Back to Sonny's point. I've always said the formula to win at the MDIA level is attitude, organization and then talent. The first two come from a stable coaching situation. No coach equals no organization. A bad coah can run everyone off (unfortunatley we've seen this too). But a good coach with some organization can take average players and probably get a few wins and make them competitive.

Here's the part for CP-Yes, the MCLA will get better-the influx of the home grown MCLAers-the guys that were raised in the west, played in the MCLA and then return to coach in it will make the programs better because THEY know what it takes to make a successful program.

[John Paul]

I think the MCLA would be viewed differently if the MCLA allowed graduate students and clubs from varsity campuses. Most likely, some of our top MCLA programs wouldn't get the chance to play varsity programs.

Why? Varsity teams use grad students. Allowing grad students better access to our teams would actually put us more in line with varsity lacrosse. As long as we follow the 4 year rule which we currently have, I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about it. In fact, I doubt the varsity teams that play us really care at all about our eligibility rules. Most games are technically scrimmages or exhibitions anyway. Whenever we play them they just want to play a well-organized, talented college team from a big-name school. I've never had a varsity coach ask me about our roster before we played them.

[dtrain34]

Well, this thread seems that it will work well enough....

I bid you all good-bye yet again friends. I will be back on hiatus, as I will be returning to the sidelines next year. It just doesn't seem appropriate for any coach to spread off-beat and self-delusional attempts at critique and humor on these boards.

It has been good fun and I thank you all for the heated debates and much shared laughter.

Until the game allows us to cross paths again.

DTRAIN

[mholtz]

I think (if we are talking 15-25 years out) that the money in the sport will change enough that AD's will have to start recognizing it as a possible revenue sport. Not revenue as in making money, but revenue as in breaking even. MSU spent $300,000 on marketing this year for a top quality Women's basketball team with a nearly 7' freshman, and were able to attract only slightly more fans than our men's club team did when we played Michigan at a neutral site. The only time they broke 8,000 fans at a women's basketball game was when they played a double header with the second half being the men's game. The attendance reported for both games was identical. Incidently, I WAS at the men's game, but not the women's game (funny numbers?).

If teams in the MCLA can grow the community and fan support in the way that JP, myself, and my predecessors have (with HUGE support from some great HS booster clubs) then I think the money will start to come.

Again, Im talking 15-20 years out.

[mholtz]

I think (if we are talking 15-25 years out) that the money in the sport will change enough that AD's will have to start recognizing it as a possible revenue sport. Not revenue as in making money, but revenue as in breaking even. MSU spent $300,000 on marketing this year for a top quality Women's basketball team with a nearly 7' freshman, and were able to attract only slightly more fans than our men's club team did when we played Michigan at a neutral site. The only time they broke 8,000 fans at a women's basketball game was when they played a double header with the second half being the men's game. The attendance reported for both games was identical. Incidently, I WAS at the men's game, but not the women's game (funny numbers?).

If teams in the MCLA can grow the community and fan support in the way that JP, myself, and my predecessors have (with HUGE support from some great HS booster clubs) then I think the money will start to come.

Again, Im talking 15-20 years out.

I hope this didn't come across as arrogant as it seemed when I re-read it. Didn't mean it that way.

[Sonny]

I think the MCLA would be viewed differently if the MCLA allowed graduate students and clubs from varsity campuses. Most likely, some of our top MCLA programs wouldn't get the chance to play varsity programs.

Why? Varsity teams use grad students. Allowing grad students better access to our teams would actually put us more in line with varsity lacrosse. As long as we follow the 4 year rule which we currently have, I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about it. In fact, I doubt the varsity teams that play us really care at all about our eligibility rules. Most games are technically scrimmages or exhibitions anyway. Whenever we play them they just want to play a well-organized, talented college team from a big-name school. I've never had a varsity coach ask me about our roster before we played them.

What I was getting at was if a grad student (who played four years of NCAA ball elsewhere) were to get 4 more years of eligibility at the MCLA level when he showed up for grad school.

To reiterate - I don't think the MCLA would enjoy it's higher level of prestige if we didn't voluntarily limit ourselves to four years of (primarily) undergraduate competition (NCAA/MCLA).

[Jana]

What if things go in the opposite direction? What if more women to go college, and more NCAA men's lacrosse programs are cut?

The MCLA may become the "true" national championship, and all teams will play "virtual varsity", relying on alumni dollars to fund their programs, just as rowing does with the IRA.

[LaxRef]

What if things go in the opposite direction? What if more women to go college, and more NCAA men's lacrosse programs are cut?

The MCLA may become the "true" national championship, and all teams will play "virtual varsity", relying on alumni dollars to fund their programs, just as rowing does with the IRA.

Wait, are you saying that rowing in the U.S. is funded with money from a terrorist organization? That doesn't make any sense!

[Jana]

haha! maybe lacrosse should be funded by Irish terrorist organizations too! You can read about it here.

There seem to be a variety of definitions of the term "revenue" out there. From a business perspective, I think of monies collected, but net profits are a different matter. That is why so many football teams show a net loss - they bring in $$ at the gate, but cost much more to produce.

The difference is the alumni fundraising that is often part and parcel of football game events.

Rowing doesn't take in any revenue. there is no "gate" along the shoreline to collect tickets. But the alumni are on a wait list at both Harvard and Yale to donate boats with naming rights (at $28k each) and they compete in a 150+ year old race each year that brings out the alumni to watch.

So I don't necessarily think that any sport has to bring in "revenue" per see - the sport just has to have very financially supportive alumni to maintain a strong position in the athletic department.

So if the MCLA teams raise funds for charitable foundation dollars, and continue to build programs, there will come a day when the other spring sports seem really expensive - and lacrosse looks very viable because there is alumni money backing it.