BC to go varsity?

[Dan Wishengrad]

Thanks for the clarification, Sonny and JR. My quote about adding 41 female opportunities was based on the faulty assumption that a school would have an equal ratio of men to women in the student body. But if BC, in this example, has 52% women as noted above, the matrix would indeed require adding at least 43 new female athletes simultaneously to adding 40 new men. Since this is not likely to happen given the scarcity of funds commonly available to add new athletic teams, I still believe that BC would have to drop at least as many existing men's varsity athletes to offset the increase in new men's laxxers. Or, perhaps, drop men's teams while simultaneously adding new women's teams...

Either way, I'd guess that the rumors about adding men's lacrosse will remain just that -- an unfounded rumor.

[More Cowbell]

Thanks for the clarification, Sonny and JR. My quote about adding 41 female opportunities was based on the faulty assumption that a school would have an equal ratio of men to women in the student body. But if BC, in this example, has 52% women as noted above, the matrix would indeed require adding at least 43 new female athletes simultaneously to adding 40 new men. Since this is not likely to happen given the scarcity of funds commonly available to add new athletic teams, I still believe that BC would have to drop at least as many existing men's varsity athletes to offset the increase in new men's laxxers. Or, perhaps, drop men's teams while simultaneously adding new women's teams...

Either way, I'd guess that the rumors about adding men's lacrosse will remain just that -- an unfounded rumor.

Well $30 million isn't exactly a scarcity of funds...

[Zeuslax]

quote]I know the BC alumni came up with some serious capital, but could not make it happen. I have got to believe it has to do with more than money. [/quote]

The people that I have talked to have all said the same thing......the AD is the issue. The alumni and boosters had (and have the money now) the money in place to sustain the program prior to the end of their last season. It was a somewhat limiting proposal (if you want to look at it that way). The plan called for sustained financial support to last for a fairly long term transition period. This would allow the university and community enough time to find permanent solutions moving forward. I think it was a 10 year allocation.

So if you want to add 40 new varsity athletic opportunities for male athletes, you must simultaneously increase the opportunities for female athletes by at least one more, or 41 in that this example.

I think I know how you're looking at this scenario......from an "opportunity" perspective. It is a major misconception that DI males all receive full rides. A full ride is pretty rare considering a team's full load of 12.5 scholarships. Many teams don't have that. Even though finances and opportunities are mutually exclusive, I think it’s fairly safe to say that opportunities and funding go hand and hand.

[More Cowbell]

I know the BC alumni came up with some serious capital, but could not make it happen. I have got to believe it has to do with more than money.

The people that I have talked to have all said the same thing......the AD is the issue. The alumni and boosters had (and have the money now) the money in place to sustain the program prior to the end of their last season. It was a somewhat limiting proposal (if you want to look at it that way). The plan called for sustained financial support to last for a fairly long term transition period. This would allow the university and community enough time to find permanent solutions moving forward. I think it was a 10 year allocation.

I know that there have been attempts in the past to bring it back, but as far as I know this is the first time that the AD has really put a dollar amount out there that it would take.

I know that the president of the university is very open to the idea of bringing the program back, and I hear the ACC is putting pressure on him and the AD to reinstate the program.

[Zeuslax]

I know that there have been attempts in the past to bring it back, but as far as I know this is the first time that the AD has really put a dollar amount out there that it would take.

I know that the president of the university is very open to the idea of bringing the program back, and I hear the ACC is putting pressure on him and the AD to reinstate the program.

Interesting to note that 10 million was needed at the time to sustain the program, which was offered and rejected. Now to kick start a program triple the number may be needed. Former coaches of BC seem like good resources on this subject. There are very active, wealthy and influential BC alums in the lax community. I'm sure one of the BC folks on here can speak to that side of things though.

From what I understand and I didn't look it up, BC is well over 50% female (which most universities are now a days).

On a side note and this is still a little fuzzy in my mind. Opportunities in the form of money being provided by outside resources, how does this come into the equation? If a program is fully supported and financed by outside resources, but the money is under the schools control this is the part that I find very confusing………and in many ways disheartening.

[Andy Sharp]

On a side note and this is still a little fuzzy in my mind. Opportunities in the form of money being provided by outside resources, how does this come into the equation? If a program is fully supported and financed by outside resources, but the money is under the schools control this is the part that I find very confusing………and in many ways disheartening.

Earlier tonight at an all coaches meeting here at Calvin we discussed outside funding and it was suggested that outside funding still falls under Title 9 jurisdiction, basically that if a team of one gender receives a gift that the college must internally match the gift for the other gender. I don't know if it is sport specific or department based, but the example used was baseball/softball. I am sure there are more details, but that was what I gathered.

[John Paul]

When it comes to Title IX compliance, outside funding does not even factor into the consideration. It doesn't matter where the funding comes from. A school needs to be in compliance with their overall varsity athlete numbers (within 1% of the student male/female ratio) regardless of where the funding for a particular sport comes from. In laymen's terms...if a donor provides a huge gift to pay for a men's lacrosse team, the school must still somehow offset the added male athletes with an appropriate number of female athletes (does not have to be in a similar sport - it's just about opportunities). The female athletes must also receive a similar level of support (scholarships, facilities, support staff, coaching salaries, etc.).

[essn1064]

With Regards to Title IX

It more has to do with funding.... All men's varsity funding has to be equal with women varsity funding.

An example... Here at Ole Miss we have 5 varsity men's teams while the women have 12

Therefore we can spend more money on football $38.5 million annually to go winless in the SEC

But the equal funding does not include money raised at the gates.